Heiser v. Pakula CA2/6

Filed 8/18/25 Heiser v. Pakula CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

SHARON HEISER, 2d Crim. No.B341308 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00564219-CU-PO-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

ANDREA PAKULA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Sharon Heiser appeals a judgment entered following Andrea Pakula’s successful motion for summary judgment. We conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment regarding Heiser’s action for medical battery and affirm. This appeal concerns Heiser’s complaint alleging that Doctor Pakula committed medical battery by using Dermabond to bandage Heiser’s surgical incisions without her express consent. Heiser experienced pain and inflammation in the days following surgery and returned to the hospital for treatment. She later brought this lawsuit against Pakula. Heiser alleged a cause of

action sounding in battery, but not medical negligence or lack of informed consent. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 6, 2022, Heiser brought this action arising from complications she experienced following her surgery. Heiser alleged that on July 2, 2021, Pakula applied Dermabond or another adhesive to close Heiser’s surgical wounds without her consent. As a result, Heiser suffered pain and inflammation at the site of the incisions. On June 6, 2024, Pakula filed a motion for summary judgment. Pakula asserted that Heiser consented to the surgery and did not report an allergy to Dermabond. In support of her motion, Pakula included a separate statement of undisputed material facts, evidentiary declarations, and deposition excerpts. Heiser responded with a separate statement of undisputed material facts and evidentiary objections. Heiser contended that it was a battery to dress her incisions with Dermabond because it is a type of adhesive and she has allergies to tape, latex, and other adhesives. The undisputed material facts and evidence established this: On July 1, 2021, Heiser presented to the Adventist Health Simi Valley Hospital emergency room with severe abdominal pain that required urgent surgical intervention. Pakula was the on-call surgeon who visited Heiser in the hospital. As part of her admission to the hospital, Heiser reported allergies to multiple antibiotics, medicines, foods, and materials, including latex and clear/paper tapes and adhesives. These were noted on her medical records. She did not report an allergy or a problem with Dermabond.