It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this trip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice case and its proceedings.)
No Undisputed Fact
Defendant’s Motion for Summary adjudication is based on the assertion that no evidence supports the liability element of the malpractice claim. However, of the 14 proposed undisputed facts, the only ones even remotely material to this point (11-14) are not undisputed. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Defendant has cited no authority supporting her proposal that such disputed issues can be summarily adjudicated on the word of one of the party’s retained witnesses.
No Material Fact
The court’s sole function on a motion for summary Judgment/adjudication is issue finding, not issue determination. The court must determine whether there is a triable issue as to any material fact. CCP § 437c(c). A material fact, for summary judgment purposes, must relate to some claim or defense in issue under the pleadings, and it must be in some way essential; i.e. if proved it could change the outcome of the case. Pettus v. Standard Cabnit Works (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 64.
Defendants’ primary point herein is that Dr. Black met the standard of care. A material fact would relate to some affirmative defense to, or element of, malpractice. However, of Defendant’s 14 proposed material facts, the few which related to the standard of care, are not facts at all but rather the opinions and conclusions of the defendant’s. Material facts would be 1) what the standard of care required given Mr. Greene’s presentation, and 2) how Dr. Black satisfied that standard.
Truly undisputed, material facts are simply not presented which negate an essential element of Plaintiffs case, or prove an affirmative defense, and the motion is not supported by admissible evidence.
Defendant has not, and cannot, meet her burden under 437c. (See Part 5 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.