Brown v. Regents CA2/7

Filed 4/17/13 Brown v. Regents CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

SHIRLEY BROWN, et al., B235791

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC109224) v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John L. Segal, Judge. Reversed. The Walls-Fox Firm, Larry Dean Walls and Tiffiny Walls for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Baker, Keener & Nahra, Brenda K. Benson; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Martin Stein and Lillie Hsu for Defendant and Respondent.

_______________________

The wife and children of Cleveland Brown sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. The Regents obtained summary judgment, and the Brown family appeals. We reverse the summary judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Cleveland Brown died on September 11, 2009. His wife and children sued the Regents, alleging malpractice in the medical care provided to Brown between August 2008 and the date of his death. Specifically, the Brown family alleged that the Regents breached the duty “to assure the competence of its staff physicians and/or failed to exercise ordinary care under the doctrine of corporate hospital liability and the circumstances, to evaluate and to assure the quality of its medical staff and resultant medical care by its staff physicians, and breached its duty of selecting, reviewing, and periodically evaluating the competency of its staff physicians. This breach of the duty of careful selection, review, and periodic evaluation of the competency of its staff physicians created an unreasonable risk of harm to its patients.” They alleged also that the Regents breached the duty “to guard against physicians’ incompetence, and further breached their duty in that they failed to assure quality medical care by the lack of prudent selection, review, and continuing evaluation of the physicians who were granted staff privileges.” Ultimately, the Browns alleged, between August 2008 and September 11, 2009, the Regents “failed to use due or reasonable care or skill in endeavoring to examine, care for, diagnose, perform surgery and treat decedent” for his medical conditions, resulting in his death on September 11, 2009. The Regents moved for summary judgment. Their separate statement of undisputed material facts listed only two facts: “All of the care and treatment provided by this defendant’s agents and employees, including Dr. David Austin, complied with the standard of care,” and “No act or omission on the part of this defendant’s agents and employees, including Dr. David Austin, caused, contributed or was a substantial factor in causing any harm to the plaintiffs or the death of decedent.”