Orozco v. Reznichenko CA5

Filed 8/26/15 Orozco v. Reznichenko CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

HERNAN OROZCO, F068032 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 10C0356) v.

ALEKSANDR REZNICHENKO, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. James T. LaPorte, Judge. Hernan Orozco, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Baker, Manock & Jensen, Dirk B. Paloutzian and Amber M. Bridges for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant Hernan Orozco challenges the summary judgment entered in favor of respondent Dr. Aleksandr Reznichenko on appellant’s fourth amended complaint for

medical malpractice. According to appellant, the court erred when it refused to appoint an expert witness to oppose the summary judgment motion on appellant’s behalf. Appellant further argues the trial court erred in dismissing the causes of action against defendants Coalinga State Hospital and the California Department of Mental Health. While a court may appoint an expert witness to act on behalf of an indigent plaintiff in a civil action, the court is not required to do so. Here, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for the appointment of an expert. Appellant’s remaining claims of error are either derived from the medical malpractice cause of action or not before us. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed. BACKGROUND While a resident of Coalinga State Hospital, appellant was diagnosed with hernias. Respondent performed corrective surgery. When respondent saw appellant for his postoperative visits, appellant complained of testicular pain. Respondent noted the presence of a small hydrocele, i.e., scrotal swelling, but appellant’s physical exams were otherwise normal. Appellant filed the underlying action against respondent, Coalinga State Hospital and the Department of Mental Health, alleging causes of action for professional negligence, failure to provide adequate facility equipment and personnel, abuse of a dependent adult, and deliberate indifference to rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Regarding the professional negligence claim, appellant alleged that respondent was negligent for failing to place a drain at the surgical site resulting in hematomas, a hydrocele, constant pain and sterility. Following numerous demurrers and motions to strike filed by all three defendants, appellant filed his fourth amended complaint. This complaint alleged causes of action for professional negligence against all defendants, failure to provide adequate facility equipment and personnel against Coalinga State Hospital and the Department of Mental