Rigney v. Gialamas

The motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication filed by defendant Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center (erroneously sued as Providence Mission Hospital Laguna Beach) (Mission) directed to the complaint of plaintiffs Francis Rigney and Joan Rigney (collectively, Plaintiffs) is DENIED.

As Mission concedes in the Reply, Plaintiffs have raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the conduct of the nursing and other non-physician staff at Mission complied with the standard of care and as to whether any act or omission by the nursing or other non-physician staff at Mission caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ damages. (See Declaration of Jas on Florendo, R.N., ¶¶ 15-23 [ROA 77].) Mission has thus failed to demonstrate summary adjudication of Issues 1 and 2 is warranted.

As to Issue No. 3 regarding ostensible agency, Mission fails to establish this is an issue that is properly subject to summary adjudication. Summary adjudication may only be granted “if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).)

Here, even if Mission established the nonexistence of a triable issue as to whether the physicians and other non-employee healthcare providers who treated Mr. Rigney were the ostensible agents of Mission, this would not completely dispose of any cause of action. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are based not only on the conduct of the physicians and non-employee healthcare providers, but also on the conduct of Mission’s nursin g and non-physician staff. As discussed above, a triable issue remains as to whether Mission can be liable for Plaintiffs’ damages based on the conduct of its nursing and non-physician staff. Accordingly, even if Mission could not be held liable for the acts or omissions of the physicians, that would not completely dispose of any particular cause of action. Mission has also not shown there is any other basis that would render this a proper summary adjudication issue.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED.

Counsel for Plaintiffs is ordered to give notice of this ruling.