Shugart v. Regents of University of California
199 Cal. App. 4th 499
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Christine and Michael Shugart sue Dr. Warren, Dr. Kim, and The Regents for medical negligence; Dr. Raz is not a defendant and was not alleged to have wrongfully acted.
- Christine underwent transvaginal tape placement and posterior vaginal repair by Warren on Aug. 22, 2007, with postoperative bleeding and subsequent complications.
- Christine later saw Dr. Raz at UCLA; additional surgeries occurred in 2008 after referrals, with ongoing symptoms.
- Regents and Warren moved for summary judgment in Nov. 2009, supported by expert declarations and medical records; plaintiffs opposed with Ostergard declarations.
- The trial court granted both motions in May 2010; Regents’ judgment was affirmed on appeal, while Warren’s judgment was reversed and remanded for proceedings.
- The appellate court concluded Ostergard’s declarations were properly before the court and could be considered, but still distinguished between defendants' liability conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ostergard’s declarations could be considered on Warren’s motion | Ostergard relied on records already before court; Garibay not controlling | Ostergard lacked foundation and relied on records not properly before court | Ostergard’s declaration could be considered and raised triable issues for Warren |
| Whether Regents’ motion was properly granted given the pleadings and expert evidence | Kim allegedly negligent; Raz improperly excluded; Ostergard opinions create triable issues | Pleading limited allegations to Dr. Kim and Dr. Raz exempt; Bergman found conduct within standard of care | Summary judgment in favor of Regents affirmed; Warren’s judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Garibay v. Hemmat, 161 Cal.App.4th 735 (Cal. App. 2008) (expert had not shown personal knowledge; records not properly before court)
- Hanson v. Grode, 76 Cal.App.4th 601 (Cal. App. 1999) (expert declaration sufficient to raise triable fact questions when foundations present)
- Powell v. Kleinman, 151 Cal.App.4th 112 (Cal. App. 2007) (triable issues may be raised by a competent expert declaration)
- Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc., 114 Cal.App.4th 1108 (Cal. App. 2003) (conclusory expert opinions without explanation lack probative value)
- AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank, 179 Cal.App.3d 1061 (Cal. App. 1986) (counterdeclarations cannot substitute for amended pleadings)
- Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 32 Cal.App.4th 1693 (Cal. App. 1995) (leave to amend required to raise new issues at summary judgment)