P. O. Box 27014
Los Angeles, California 90027
Phone Number (323) 523 4112
In Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, VAN NUYS COURTHOUSE EAST
|DAVID ALOMATSI, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant(s) Deanco Healthcare, LLC a.k.a Mission Community Hospital; Does 1 To 100||)))))))))))))))||Case No.: 19STCV21741 Assigned to: The Hon. Theresa M. TraberDept: NW-U PLAITNIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date Complaint Filed: 6/21/2019FSC: TBDTrial Date: TBD|
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on __________________ at __________ or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, located at 6230 Sylmar Ave, Van Nuys, CA 91401, Plaintiff David Alomatsi will, and hereby does, move pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, for an order granting summary judgment or, in the alternative summary adjudication in its favor.
The Plaintiff makes this motion because there are no disputed issues on any of the material facts.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to this Court’s order, opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, if any, shall be filed and served on the Plaintiff on or before ****, and plaintiff’s reply shall be filed and served on counsel for Defendants on or before ****
DATED: Respectfully Submitted
BY: /S/ DAVID ALOMATSI
(PRO SE LITIGANT)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
This is a case of medical malpractice that occurred on May 19, 2017 when the Plaintiff was admitted to the Defendant hospital, an acute care medical facility in Panorama City in California, for treatment due to general weakness. The Undisputed facts stated below clearly establish that this is a case where the Defendant simply failed to exercise duty of care towards the Plaintiff, thereby exposing the Plaintiff to unnecessary strife and potential health related consequences. The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the undisputed material facts of this case.
Plaintiff arrived by car. He was able to walk at the time. A few days after Plaintiff was admitted at Mission, Plaintiff was informed by his doctor, that he would be transferred to Maclay Healthcare Center (Maclay), a nursing home in Sylmar, California for lower level of care. Plaintiff now believes that his condition worsened even before being transferred out of Mission to Maclay, where Plaintiff became bed-bound and more vulnerable after being admitted for treatment at Maclay around May 25, 2017 for 20 days. Plaintiff was transferred back to Mission Community Hospital and was admitted for the second time, for treatment. Plaintiff was in a much worse condition than the time he was previously discharged from Mission, according to records. After some treatment during Plaintiff’s second admission at Mission, Plaintiff was transferred to Kindred Hospital, Gardena, California for wound care and physical therapy. After that, Plaintiff was transferred to a Las Flores Convalescent Hospital in Gardena, California to continue physical therapy. According to records reviewed by Plaintiff, it was while at Mission Community Hospital, during the first admission, that Plaintiff’s right to receive treatment in order to maintain his health and/or to improve it, was violated.
The undisputed facts of this case make it clear that the Defendant simply failed to exercise a duty of care prior to releasing and transferring the Plaintiff, whose health was yet to stabilize. There are certain general principles to be noted in relation to malpractice cases.  The “law has never held a physician or surgeon liable for every untoward result which may occur in medical practice” (Engelking v. Carlson, 13 Cal. 2d 216, 220 [88 P.2d 695]; Lashley v. Koerber, supra, 26 Cal. 2d 83, 88-89) but it “demands only that a physician or surgeon have the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by practitioners of the medical profession in the same locality and that he exercise ordinary care in applying such learning and skill to the treatment of his patient” (Lawless v. Calaway, supra, 24 Cal. 2d 81, 86).  No different or “higher degree of responsibility” is imposed “in making a diagnosis than in prescribing treatment.” (Patterson v. Marcus, 203 Cal. 550, 552 [265 P. 222]; see, also, Ries v. Reinard, 47 Cal. App. 2d 116, 119 [117 P.2d 386].)  A doctor’s failure to possess or exercise the requisite learning or skill “in a particular case is generally a question for experts and can be established only by their testimony” (Trindle v. Wheeler, 23 Cal. 2d 330, 333 [143 P.2d 932]; also Church v. Bloch, 80 Cal. App. 2d 542, 547 [182 P.2d 241]), which “expert evidence is conclusive” where it appears that the “matter in issue is one within the knowledge of experts only and is not within the common knowledge of laymen” (Engelking v. Carlson, supra, 13 Cal. 2d 216, 221). Application of these principles in this case sustains Plaintiff’s position that charge of malpractice is supported by the record.
The definitive criteria in guidance of the trial court’s determination of the qualifications of an expert witness are recognized in Sinz v. Owens, supra, 33 Cal. 2d 749, to rest primarily on “occupational experience,” as stated at page 753: “The proof of that standard (the reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the medical profession under similar circumstances) is made by the testimony of a physician qualified to speak as an expert and having in addition, what Wigmore has classified as ‘occupational experience–the kind which is obtained casually and incidentally, yet steadily and adequately, in the course of some occupation or livelihood.’ (2 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.] § 556, p. 635.). He must have had basic educational and professional training as a general foundation for his testimony, but it is a practical knowledge of what is usually and customarily done by physicians under circumstances similar to those which confronted the defendant charged with malpractice that is of controlling importance in determining competency of the expert to testify to the degree of care against which the treatment given is to be measured.”
In this case, Dr. Andres Maldonado, M.D. is a Primary care physician, Occupational health and Medical Researcher. He submitted an expert opinion to guide and assist the court to a just and fair determination of this dispute. In his expert opinion, Dr. Maldonado has reviewed and internalized the contents of the Plaintiff’s records from Mission Community Hospital.
According to Dr. Maldonado’s expert opinion, the Plaintiff was indeed admitted at Mission Community Hospital on May 19, 2017 and remained there until May 25, 2017 when he was discharged and transferred to Maclay Healthcare Center (“Maclay”). While at Mission, the Plaintiff was subjected to several Complete Blood Count (CBC) tests, all of which concluded that the Plaintiff’s white blood cell count was severely low requiring constant medical attention. As at May 24, 2017, it is Dr. Maldonado’s opinion that the Plaintiff’s was nowhere close to recovered, as the Plaintiff recorded white blood cell count of 1.400 mcL as opposed to the normal required range of 5.000 mcL – 10.000 mcL.
On the very same day, Amphotericin B was ordered by Dr. Carmalt, the infectious disease doctor, to be administered to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had on previous unrelated occasions received Amphotericin B to treat his deteriorating condition and improve his white blood cell count. However, the Plaintiff was also aware of the potential seizures as a side effect of Amphotericin B. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was ready and willing to receive Amphotericin B, and requested that anti-seizure measures be put in place.
Eventually, by and on May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff received no Amphotericin B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was prematurely discharged and transferred to Maclay Healthcare Center.
It is Dr. Maldonado’s opinion that the prescribed medication (Amphotericin B) ought and should have been administered to the Plaintiff. It is highly probable that Mission’s delay in the Plaintiff’s antifungal treatment and failure to monitor his ICP may be the cause of the worsening of the condition. Mission could have ensured faster recovery by ensuring that they had fully treated the Plaintiff until he had reached laboratory fungal levels that indicate that he would not suffer sepsis. However, the appropriates tests, including spinal tap were not even done to determine the extent of the infection in his cerebrospinal fluid. Mr. Alomatsi would not have needed to be re-admitted for the second time had Mission Community Hospital met the appropriate treatment standard.
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff was the was admitted at Mission Community Hospital, was subjected to CBC tests indicating low white blood cell count resulting in the Plaintiff’s weakness and deteriorating health, and that Defendant had a duty of care to provide the Plaintiff with the much-needed medical attention including administration of Amphotericin B, which Mission failed to administer. Defendant was negligent as a matter of law. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, and that this matter be set for trial on the issue of damages only.
DATED: Respectfully Submitted
BY: /S/ DAVID ALOMATSI
(PRO SE LITIGANT)
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )