G.M. v. Adams CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 2022 No. B312798Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants because the plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding causation, specifically failing to rebut expert testimony that the requested prenatal test would not have detected the minor's condition.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in a medical negligence action where the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of causation.
Whether the plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment sufficiently addressed the defendant's expert evidence regarding the diagnostic limitations of the AFP test.
Whether the plaintiff could raise a new theory of liability based on ultrasound testing for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court found no triable issue existed as to causation, and granted summary judgment.”

“[T]he pleadings determine the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion.”

Filed 6/14/22 G.M. v. Adams CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

G.M., a Minor, B312798

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV46725) v.

FRED ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed. Nathaniel J. Friedman, Matthew E. Hess for Plaintiff and Appellant. Schmid & Voiles, Denise H. Greer, Deborah S. Taggart, and Jennifer K. Villebro for Defendants and Respondents. ___________________________________

A minor filed a complaint for wrongful life, alleging her mother’s physician and his medical assistant failed to order an in utero test that would have revealed the minor’s spina bifida, depriving her mother of the option to undergo an abortion. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue as to whether the test would have revealed the minor’s condition. We affirm. BACKGROUND A. G.M.’s Gestation and Birth On May 26, 2016, Mayra Soto, G.M.’s mother, visited Dr. Fred Adams for a routine gynecologic visit. Soto reported she was 14 weeks pregnant. Soto returned to see Dr. Adams on June 24, 2016. Dr. Adams’s examination findings were all within normal limits. G.M. was born in November 2016. An initial examination showed a dark vesicular lesion on her lower sacral area that was initially diagnosed as a capillary hemangioma, but ultimately diagnosed as an intrathecal lipoma with a spinal dysraphism (anomaly) consistent with a lipomyelomeningocele, a “closed” neural tube defect. The lesion was removed on October 12, 2017. B. Litigation On December 30, 2019, G.M., by her guardian ad litem Jose Maya, filed a complaint against several defendants, including Dr. 1 Adams and Jazmin Cruz, his medical assistant. After substantial law and motion practice, the first amended complaint is operative.

G.M. v. Adams CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

AI Brief