Wang v. Taylor CA2/5
Filed 12/12/24 Wang v. Taylor CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
QINGFEN WANG, B334667
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV30687)
THOMAS TAYLOR et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Margaret L. Oldendorf, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Ping C. Shen and Ping C. Shen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza and Kristin M. Tannler; Reback, McAndrews & Blessey, Thomas F. McAndrews and Tracy D. Hughes, for Defendants and Respondents.
I. INTRODUCTION
Qingfen Wang (plaintiff) brought an action for negligence against the Pasadena Advanced Surgery Institute1 (PASI) and medical malpractice against Dr. Thomas Taylor (defendants) for injuries she suffered during a medical procedure. PASI filed a motion for summary judgment that Dr. Taylor joined (defendants’ summary judgment motion). The trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and entered judgments in their favor. On appeal, plaintiff contends the court erred in excluding her evidence and there were triable issues of material fact concerning her causes of action. We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
On October 18, 2021, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint. She alleged she hired Dr. Taylor to perform abdominoplasty surgery on October 12, 2020, at PASI. When plaintiff awoke from the surgery, her right leg was bandaged and no one explained the nature of her injury or how it happened. Two weeks later, plaintiff returned to see Dr. Taylor. He told her she had suffered a minor injury on her thigh, but did not tell her what had happened. Later, Dr. Taylor gave plaintiff a medical report that stated that “something was wrong with the Bovie pad that was used in the operation, which caused her right thigh to be burned seriously.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)