What is professional negligence?

Useful Rulings on Professional Negligence – General

Recent Rulings on Professional Negligence – General

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

Code Violation RICO/Hobbs Act Violation Professional Negligence On July 27, 2020, Dinglasan’s default was entered. On October 7, 2020, this case was transferred from Department 28 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department. A Status Conference is set for December 1, 2020. Discussion The hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to January 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128; 430.41[2].)

  • Hearing

TINA YAN VS. STEVEN R. RHOADS

Despite Defendant’s claims that his MTD did not address the merits of Plaintiff’s professional negligence and legal malpractice causes of action, the following language from the MTD itself contradicts this statement: “There is no actual dispute whether Rhoads can be held liable for giving negligent advice because . , . his advice was correct,” (MPA MTD 13.3: 20-211) The very issue of negligent advice lies at the center of Plaintiff’s legal malpractice action before this court, The motion goes on to discuss

  • Hearing

MOHINDER KAUR , ET AL. VS GAGANDEEP RAHI, M.D., ET AL.

On May 20, 2020, Valley filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact that Plaintiffs cannot succeed on their professional negligence claim against it and that Valley did not owe decedent a duty under vicarious liability.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

AMANDA TULLER ET AL VS GOLDEN BEAR CAPITAL INC

With regard to the 3rd cause of action for professional negligence, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant owed them a duty which Defendant breached causing Plaintiffs to suffer damages. (SAC p.9 ¶¶23-27).

  • Hearing

YADIRA VELASQUEZ VS NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1281.2.) A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1280, subd. (e)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PEGGYE MARTIN ET AL VS IBIERE SECK ET AL

The FAC alleges causes of action for constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence- legal malpractice, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Respondents the Cochran Firm (now “Defendant”) filed an answer to the FAC on November 20, 2019, asserting thirty-four (34) affirmative defenses. On November 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal, indicating that Delray Bradley would no longer participate in this action.

  • Hearing

JANE ROE VS JAMES A MACER, M.D., ET AL.

In Plaintiff's July 25, 2019 ("First Amended Complaint"), she alleges four causes of action: (1) professional negligence; (2) battery (as to Dr. Macer only); (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) concealment. PRESENTATION: On August 29, 2019, the Court sustained Huntington's demurrer as to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and the concealment cause of action, with leave to amend. No amendment was filed. The sole remaining cause of action is now the professional negligence cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NOYEMI KAROYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HYUNDAI OF GLENDALE, LLC A BUSINESS ENTITY EXACT FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1281.2.) The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

YADIRA VELASQUEZ VS NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1281.2.) A proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract. (Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479.) Such enforcement may be sought by a party to the arbitration agreement. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1280, subd. (e)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DEE ANN ABELAR ET AL VS JOHN R DINGILIAN M.D. ET AL

As to the loss of consortium claim, because the Professional Negligence claim fails, plaintiff Brian Abelar’s Loss of Consortium claim also fails. (Blain v. Doctor's Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1067.) Accordingly, defendant Jeffrey Mora, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MADHU VIJAYAN VS KEVIN SANDS, DDS

In an action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages may be included unless plaintiff establishes via affidavits that “there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§3294, 425.13(a). When a fraud claim is “directly related to the manner in which [a physician] render[s] professional services[,]” the §425.13 requirement for establishing a substantial probability of prevailing applies.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CA RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LP VS NELSON

Tenth Cause of Action for Negligence This cause of action alleges that Moving Defendants engaged in professional negligence by managing the investment. [SS ¶ 98.] The applicable limitations period for professional negligence is two years. [Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1); see also Slavin v. Trout (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1536, 1539.]

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOE VS KEMPIAK, M.D

Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 666-667 for the proposition that "negligent actions undertaken by a health care provider for the purpose of delivering medical care to a patient constitute professional negligence; tortious actions undertaken or a different purpose, for the physician's sexual gratification – are not." Plaintiff further cites Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DOE VS KEMPIAK, M.D

Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 666-667 for the proposition that "negligent actions undertaken by a health care provider for the purpose of delivering medical care to a patient constitute professional negligence; tortious actions undertaken or a different purpose, for the physician's sexual gratification – are not." Plaintiff further cites Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

GEOFFREY BENNETT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR CLEAVES M. BENNETT, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE CLEAVES M. BENNETT LIVING TRUST VS ELIZABETH CHAI-CHANG, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action (Professional Negligence). The elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are (1) the existence of the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the profess ion commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional negligence. (Ibid.) (Oasis West Realty, LLC v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARGARITA ASARYAN , ET AL. VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

On January 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint containing two causes of action for professional negligence, one brought by each Plaintiff against all Defendants. Defendant CSMC now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Alternatively, CSMC moves for summary adjudication on the issue of ostensible agency. Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to CSMC’s motion. No other oppositions have been filed.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

STACY MURRY ET AL. VS STACIE'S CHALET STOCKTON ET AL.

However, since the identified pleading deficiency can be remedied, Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend. 2nd Cause of Action – Professional Negligence. Since the allegations surrounding this cause of action encompass injuries to Decedent, like the Elder Abuse claim, this cause of action must be brought as a survivor claim. (See Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at 1268-1269.)

  • Hearing

VOGT V. PORTER

Professional Negligence “In civil malpractice cases, the elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are: ‘(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Wiley v. County of San Diego (1998) 19 Cal.4th 532, 536.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LESLIE LOPEZ VS CITRUS VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER AKA QUEEN OF THE VALLEY HOSPITAL

Demurrer – Ordinary/Professional Negligence Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s premises liability and negligence causes of action are truly medical malpractice causes of action. The Court agrees. In Flores v.

  • Hearing

SAVANNAH LUYBEN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOHN LUYBEN VS MEMORIALCARE CENTER FOR WOMEN OB/GYN CLINIC, ET AL.

It provides: Upon the granting of a motion for preference pursuant to subdivision (b), a party in an action based upon a health provider's alleged professional negligence, as defined in Section 364, shall receive a trial date not sooner than six months and not later than nine months from the date that the motion is granted. The Court will set trial in nine months, so it is the latest possible date under the statute.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FELICIA MCCARRON VS SISYPHIAN, LLC DBA XPOSED GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VERA MAE RHYMES VS SHLOMO RECHNITZ , ET AL.

“‘[N]eglect’ within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.57 covers an area of misconduct distinct from ‘professional negligence.’” (Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 783.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

OSUNA V. CHALEKSON

Where a claim sounds in professional negligence, it is governed by the special limitations period in section 340.5. (Ibid.) The limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 governs actions for injury based upon a health care provider’s alleged professional negligence. “Professional negligence” means a negligent act or omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering of professional services. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5(2).)

  • Hearing

MOHINDER KAUR , ET AL. VS GAGANDEEP RAHI, M.D., ET AL.

On November 15, 2020, Rahi filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the elements of duty supporting Plaintiffs’ claim of professional negligence against Rahi.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FELICIA MCCARRON VS SISYPHIAN, LLC DBA XPOSED GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

This subdivision shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) The party petitioning to compel arbitration under written arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and party opposing petition must meet the same evidentiary burden to prove any facts necessary to its defense.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 153     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.