Sacramento Surgeons Try To Avoid Responsibility In Malpractice Case, Part 5 of 9

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The High Standard for Granting a Motion for Summary Judgment, Which Is A Disfavored Remedy, Is Not Met By Moving Defendant

Motions for summary judgment are comparatively disfavored and widely understood as a drastic measure which should be used with extreme caution so that it does not become a substitute for trial. WYDA Associates v. Memer (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1702. Summary judgment procedure, inasmuch as it denies the right of an adverse party to a trial, is drastic and “should be used with caution … ” Steingart v. Oliver (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 406, 411 (quoting Mann v. Cracchiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 35-36).

Moreover, a motion for summary judgment is not the appropriate method to try issues, but merely should be used to discover, through the use of affidavits, whether there are issues to be tried and whether the parties possess evidence which demands analysis at trial. Aaitui v. Grand Properties (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1369. The trial court’s only function on a motion for summary judgment is issue-finding, not issue determination; the judge must determine from the evidence submitted whether there is a triable issue as to any material fact. CCP § 437c(c); see also Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 915,926. If there is a single such issue, then the motion must be denied. Versa Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court (Motsinger) (1978) 78 Cal. App. 3d 237, 240.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Further, the moving party’s evidence must be strictly construed and the opposing party’s evidence should be construed liberally, and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the opposing party. Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1461; see also, Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Corp., (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 79, 116.

The party opposing summary judgment must prevail if any disputed issues are raised. Once the opposing party has demonstrated the mere existence of at least one triable issue of fact, all doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion must be resolved in favor of the opposing party. Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1830. Thus, the moving party must show that under no possible hypothesis is there a material question of fact which requires an examination by trial. Chevron USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544. Even if no opposition is presented, the moving party still has the burden of eliminating all triable issues of fact. Wright v. Stang Manufacturing Co. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1218, 1228. As plaintiff demonstrates that there are numerous triable issues of fact in this matter, summary judgment is improper. (See Part 6 of 9.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information