Moering v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital CA2/6

Filed 3/27/14 Moering v. Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

NANCY MOERING et al., 2d Civil No. B244410 (Super. Ct. No. 1372813) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

SANTA BARBARA COTTAGE HOSPITAL, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Nancy Moering and Dean Moering appeal from judgment after jury trial in this action for negligence and medical malpractice against Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Inc. and Cottage Health System (collectively "Cottage"). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Our factual and procedural summary is based upon Cottage's brief and our own partial review of the record because the Moerings' opening brief does not support its factual references with citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) In 2009, Nancy Moering had a total hip replacement surgery at Cottage.1 About two days later, her hip became dislocated. Nancy testified that this happened when a nurse's assistant pulled a pad out from under her and caused her body to shift

1 We hereafter refer to Nancy Moering by her first name, not from disrespect, but to ease the reader's task.

suddenly. After the dislocation, Michael F. Maguire, M.D., attempted a closed reduction but it was not successful.2 A second surgery was performed to reset the dislocated hip. A third surgery was necessary to replace the prosthesis. Before trial, the trial court declined to admit a bulk exhibit that contained all of Nancy's medical records, but indicated it would rule on any part of the record that witnesses referred to during the course of the trial. Also before trial, the court sustained Cottage's hearsay objection to several exhibits that summarized statutes, regulations and standards for nursing care and medical record documentation. The court indicated that it would take judicial notice of any relevant provisions and incorporate them into the jury exhibits. It allowed the experts to describe these provisions when they testified about the standard of care and allowed them to refresh their memories by referring to them. The Moerings presented two expert witnesses. Sharon McFerran, a registered nurse, testified about the standard of care applicable to nurses based on the California Code of Regulations, titles 16 and 22 and the Joint Commission on accreditation of hospitals (Joint Commission) standards. McFerran offered her opinion that Nancy's medical records were inadequate and contained errors, omissions, and inconsistencies. Based on her review of Nancy's medical records, she testified that Nancy had skin breakdown while at Cottage and that Cottage staff did not timely comply with physician's orders concerning her care. McFerran testified that the records lacked documentation of bathing and turning. She did not testify that any failure to comply with the applicable standard of care was a proximate cause of harm to Nancy. Denise Welvang, a pharmacist, offered her opinion that Nancy did not receive adequate anesthesia during the hip revision surgery, that her pain was not properly controlled with medication, that she did not consistently receive nicotine patches, that her skin breakdown was not properly treated, that her medication was not properly ordered or administered, and that her chart contained omissions and errors. The