Schaffron v. Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento CA3

Filed 6/17/14 Schaffron v. Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

MARGUERITE SCHAFFRON,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C071727

v. (Super. Ct. No. 34201000079045CUWTGDS) SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER, SACRAMENTO,

Defendant and Respondent.

This case arises out of Marguerite Schaffron’s termination from her employment as a registered nurse at Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento (Sutter Medical). Sutter Medical terminated Schaffron for improper administration and disposal of medicine as well as her violation of policies regarding documentation of medical treatment. In response, Schaffron filed an action in superior court to claim the termination constituted a breach of her employment contract, unlawful retaliation for her attempts to advocate on behalf of her patient, and defamation of her character. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Sutter Medical. Schaffron appeals from the judgment of dismissal and subsequent order denying her motion for a new trial. Schaffron contends (1) there is a triable issue of material fact

1

as to whether her refusal to engage in overbilling of a patient was the cause of the retaliatory termination, (2) the trial court erred by failing to follow Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32 (Khajavi), which Schaffron asserts to preclude termination in retaliation for patient advocacy, (3) a credibility contest between Schaffron and her manager requires trial because “[t]hey disagree on many issues,” and (4) Sutter Medical presented insufficient evidence to negate her claims of defamation and breach of contract. We conclude Schaffron has forfeited all of her arguments except for her contention regarding the trial court’s refusal to apply Khajavi, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 32. Schaffron’s forfeiture is based on her failure to develop any legal authority in support of her contentions. In addition to forfeiture, we conclude there is no triable issue of fact for the claim of retaliatory firing for refusing to engage in overbilling. As to Schaffron’s argument regarding the applicability of Khajavi, we conclude she cannot establish prejudice because she does not address a separate ground on which the trial court based its decision. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND We set forth only a brief statement of the factual and procedural history of the case due to Schaffron’s forfeiture of all but one of her arguments. Schaffron’s Operative Complaint Schaffron’s second amended complaint is the operative complaint in this case, and it alleges she was wrongfully terminated by Sutter Medical. The operative complaint recounts that she gave L.D., a terminally ill patient, a quadruple dose of morphine. The operative complaint admits Schaffron did not dispose of excess morphine. However, the operative complaint portrays Schaffron’s actions as consistent with common sense and in the best interests of the patient. The day after Schaffron administered the excess morphine, the patient died. The operative complaint alleges Schaffron’s manager informed the patient’s family the “night