Allen v. American Medical Response West CA3

Filed 2/16/16 Allen v. American Medical Response West CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

OPAL J. ALLEN et al., C077087

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 39-2011-000269893-CU-PO-STK) v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE WEST et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs and appellants Opal J. Allen and Victor Allen, Sr. (collectively the Allens) sued defendants and respondents American Medical Response West (named as American Medical Response, Inc., and American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc.), County of San Joaquin, Joshua Moore, Robert Bolt, Jared Roberts, Richard N. Buys, M.D., Dan Burch, Douglas DeMartinez, M.D., and Nurse Pollock (collectively respondents) regarding the drowning death of their grandson and son, respectively, Victor

1

Allen, Jr. (the decedent). The Allens appeal from the summary judgment granted in favor of respondents. We will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The record on appeal does not include a reporter’s transcript. Accordingly, we treat this as a “judgment roll” appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082- 1083 (Allen); Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) Nor do we have the benefit of an adequate summary of significant facts provided by counsel for appellants.1 (Rule 8.204(a)(2).) Thus, we summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment as follows.

The Allens alleged respondents were grossly negligent in their medical response to the drowning of the decedent, by failing to follow published policies and in allowing life-support measures to be terminated precipitously. The Allens also alleged the corporate respondents and the County of San Joaquin were liable for failing to properly train and supervise the other respondents and for vicarious liability based on the acts or omissions of the other respondents.

Respondents collectively moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication, contending respondents’ care and treatment of the decedent met the standard of care and was provided in good faith; neither Burch nor Buys was in any way involved in the response or emergency aid rendered; no act or omission on the part of any respondent was a substantial factor in causing the decedent’s death; as the gross negligence cause of action fails, so too must the causes of action for failure to properly train and supervise and for vicarious liability; and Opal J. Allen is not a proper plaintiff.