Motion for Summary Judgment in Graciela Buso vs. Kamran Aflatoon, Medical Doctor| Trellis.Law

On December 05, 2017 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Buso, Graciela, Buso, Karla, Buso, Maria, Buso, Miguel, Buso, Pedro, and Aflatoon, Kamran, Medical Doctor, Valley Health Team, Zaki, Nagi Edward, Medical Doctor, for 45 Unlimited - Medical Malpractice in the District Court of Fresno County.

Preview
RODNEY G. TOMLINSON, ESQ. (SBN 116303)
rtomlinson@schmidvoiles.com
ADAM R. JAMES, ESQ. (SBN 206907)
ajames@schmidvoiles.com
SCHMID & VOILES
333 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-FILED
10/18/2019 11:24 AM
Tel: (213) 473-8700/Fax: (213) 473-8777
Superior Court of California
County of Fresno
Attorneys for Defendant By: |. Herrera, Deputy
KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO

12 GRACIELA BUSO, SURVIVING CASE NO. 17CECG04176
SPOUSE OF DECEDENT PEDRO (Dept. 502; The Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton,
13 BUSO, KARLA BUSO, MARIA BUSO, Presiding)
14 PEDRO BUSO, AND MIGUEL BUSO
SURVIVING BIOLOGICAL [Complaint Filed December 5, 2017]
15 CHILDREN OF DECEDENT, PEDRO
BUSO, DEFENDANT, KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O.,
16 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO
Plaintiffs, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
17
DECLARATION OF ADAM R. JAMES, ESQ,
18 Vv
[Filed Concurrently with Evidentiary
19 KAMRAN AFLATOON, M.D., NAGI Objections]
EDWARD ZAKI, M.D., VALLEY
20 HEALTH TEAM, DOES 1 TO 10, DATE : October 22, 2019 [Reserved]
21 INCLUSIVE, TIME : 3:30 P.M.
DEPT.: 501
22 Defendants. (Hon, Jeffrey Hamilton, Judge Presiding)

23 TRIAL DATE: JANUARY 21, 2020
24
25
Mit
26

27 ut

28
ut
1
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF

RECORD:
Defendant, KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O. submits the following reply to the opposition

brought by plaintiffs to their Motion for Summary Judgment.

I THE OPPOSITION FAILED TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT

The opposition by plaintiffs fail to "dispute" the material facts set forth by moving

parties, as will be fully illustrated below, In fact, the Declaration of Dr, Kendall Wagneri:

insufficient for multiple reasons: 1) Dr, Wagner's declaration improperly seeks to introduce new

theories which must be disregarded; 2) There is no basis/foundation for Dr, Wagner's declaration

10 regarding standard of care and as such, must be disregarded; and 3) Dr. Wagner's declaration fails

il to explain how the acts or omissions by Dr. Aflatoon resulted in Plaintiff's Mr, Buso's death, thus

12 there is no triable issue of fact regarding causation." As such, there is no basis/foundation for Dr.

13 Wagner's opinions. The opposition of plaintiff simply labels Fact Nos. 5-8 as "Disputed" without

14 any valid, corresponding evidence in support thereof,

15 Where the opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of the

16 evidence on the issues that are the subject of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the moving

17 defendant first "must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact nof to find any

18 underlying material fact more likely than not..." (Aguilar v, Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25
19 Cal.4th 826 at 851.) If the defendant meets that burden, "...the plaintiff must then present

20 evidence that would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find in his favor more likely than not."

21 (Bushling v, Fremont Medical Center (2004) 117 Cal.App.4" 493 at 507, citing Aguilar, supra,

22 at 854.)

23 The plaintiff must meet this burden by competent and admissible evidence. On a Motion

24 for Summary Judgment, admissibility of expert declarations must be established in the same

25 manner as if the expert were testifying at trial. (See, Evidence Code §720,) Expert opinions based

26 upon speculation or conjecture, i.e., those lacking in evidentiary foundation, are inadmissible.

27 (Evidence Code §801(b).) An expert must state the factual basis of and provide a reasoned.

28 explanation for, his opinions. (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, supra, 117 Cal.App.4" 493

2
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
at 510; Jennings v, Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4" 1108 at

1120-1121; Kelly v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4" 519 at 529.) An admissible expert opinion on

causation in a medical malpractice case requires more than a doctor's conclusion. (Jennings,

supra, at 1118.) As explained in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. Univ. of Southern Cal, (2012) 55

Cal.4th 747, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper whose role is to "exclude ‘clearly invalid and

unreliable! expert opinion." Id. at 772.
IL, THE DECLARATION OF DR, WAGNER IMPROPERLY SEEKS TO

INTRODUCE A NEW THEORY AGAINST DEFENDANT. AS SUCH, THE

THEORY IS IMPROPER AND THE COURT MUST GRANT THE MOTION

10 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF DR. AFLATOON.

il It is well established that the pleadings serve as the “outer measure of materiality" in a

12 summary judgment motion, and the motion may not be granted or denied on issues not raised by

13 the pleadings. [Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258; Nieto v. Blue

14 Shield of Calif. Life & Health Ins, Co, (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 74—"the pleadings determine

15 the scope of relevant issues on a summary judgment motion"; Hutton v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Co.

16 (2013) 213 Cal.App.4" 486, 493—summary judgment defendant need only "negate plaintiff's

17 theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on

18 some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings".

19 As noted in the moving papers, the Complaint contends that "the negligence on part of

20 Defendants, Drs. Aflatoon and Zaki in the failure to recognize injury to decedent's cervical spine

21 and throat during and after surgery on August 24, 2016 and the cause thereof; and as to

22 Defendant Valley Health Team, the failure to promptly address the cause of the lack of breath of

23 decedent which caused him to die on September 6, 2016." (See Exhibit B to the moving papers).

24 More specifically, in responses to discovery, plaintiffs contend that that Dr. Aflatoon

25 "negligence includes the failure to properly diagnose and treat decedent, Pedro Buso with regard

26 to a surgical procedure on or about August 24, 2016. Decedent underwent an anterior cervical

27 discectomy for cervical stenosis. He passed away two weeks after the procedure. Death is not an

28 acceptable risk or known complication from this procedure. Had the procedure been performed

3
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
within the applicable standard of care, Decedent would not have died." (See Exhibit D to the

moving papers.) Dr. Wagner is now alleging "the failure by Dr. Aflatoon and his staff to properly

advise Decedent and his wife with regard to these potentially life threatening symptoms

following surgery fell below the standard of care". (See Declaration of Dr. Wagner Paragraph
7.b.) This allegation does not appear in the complaint or in the responses to special

interrogatories, This is improper.
This allegation appears to be nothing but a transparent attempt to moot defendant's

Motion for Summary Judgment, which, as the appellate court stated is "patently unfair": [i]t
would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs te defeat [the] summary judgment motion by

10 allowing them to present a 'moving target' unbounded by the pleadings." [Citations

il omitted.]." (Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280; bolding

12 added.) As such, there is no basis for Paragraph 7.b. of Dr. Wagner's declaration and it must be
13 excluded. Thus, plaintiff has not presented any opposition to dispute that KAMRAN

14 AFLATOON, D.O., complied with the standard of care and the motion for summary judgment

15 must be granted.

16 i. THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CREATE A

17 TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO DEFENDANT KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O.
18 A Dr. Wagner's declaration ignores the evidence that discharge

19 instructions were presented to Mr. Buso. As such Plaintiffs cannot meet their
20 burden that Dr. Aflatoon breached the standard of care.

21 There is no basis for Dr. Wagner's opinions regarding standard of care in Paragraph 7.b.

22 As noted in the moving papers, the moving party need only present evidence that one or more of
23 the elements of the cause of action for negligence cannot be established, Union Bank v. Los

24 Angeles Superior Court (1995) 13 Cal.App.4th 573. The burden then shifts to the opposing
25 party to present evidence of sufficient quality so as to raise a triable issue of fact. [emphasis

26 added]. See, Saelzler v. Advanced Group (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763; Aguilar y. Atlantic Richfield Co.
27 (2001) 25 Cal 4th 826. If the plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence of any element

28 addressed by defendant, summary judgment must be granted in favor of the moving party.
4
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[emphasis added] C.C.P. §437¢(p)(2)
The opposition by plaintiff failed to create a dispute as to whether Dr. Aflatoon complied

with the standard of care while treating her. In order to create this "dispute", plaintiff has stated

that Separate Statement Fact Nos. 5-6 are disputed by referencing the Declaration of Dr. Wagner.
As noted above, an expert must state the factual basis of and provide a reasoned

explanation for, his opinions. (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, supra, 117 Cal.App.4" 493

at 510; Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4" 1108 at

1120-1121; Kelly v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal. App.4" 519 at 529.) An "expert opinion may not be

based on assumptions of fact that are without evidentiary support or based on factors that are

10 speculative or conjectural... without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to

i the ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value...." Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center (2004)

12 117 Cal.App.4th 493, 510. As cited above, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper whose role is to

13 "exclude ‘clearly invalid and unreliable’ expert opinion." Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v, Univ. of

14 Southern Cal, (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 772.
15 The sole basis for Dr. Wagner's criticisms on the standard of care is that "the failure by

16 Dr. Aflatoon and his staff to properly advise Decedent and his wife with regard to these

17 potentially life threatening symptoms following surgery fell below the standard of care". (See

18 Declaration of Dr. Wagner Paragraph 7.b.) Dr. Wagner reviewed the records that were attached

19 as Exhibits to the Motion for Summary Judgment. It is undisputed that the records from

20 Memorial Care Orange Coast Medical Center unequivocally state that discharge instructions

21 were provided to Mr. Buso, These discharge instructions pertained to when the patient needed to

22 follow up with Dr. Aflatoon or to contact an emergency room. Dr. Wagner cannot ignore the

23 records in providing his opinion, Pedro Buso signed a note indicating that he received a copy of

24 the discharge instructions, The record states: "My signature below indicates that I understand my

25 physician has found me/my child stable for discharge from the hospital, I have been provided a

26 copy, have had the opportunity to ask questions, and understand these discharge instructions.”

27 Pedro Buso's signature appears underneath the text. (See Exhibit G, page 539 to the MSJ, a copy

28 is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "'A"'). Besides the note signed by Pedro Buso,

5
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
there are numerous nursing notes which detail that discharge instructions were provided to the

patient (and spouse) in Spanish. The nursing note from August 25, 2016 at 3:53 p.m. by Leizel

Maximo, RN., states "discharge instructions given using language line interpreter noted; patient

verbalized understanding." (See Exhibit G, page 609 to the MSJ, Exhibit 'B"). Further, the
Discharge Planning note regarding the Discharge Process and Options were "discussed with the

patient and spouse at bedside by Trina Jaynes, RN. Translation provided by Maria Martinez-
Ortiz, CAN. (See Exhibit G, page 712 to the MSJ, Exhibit "C"). In addition, Leizel Maximo,

R.N., noted on August 25, 2016 at 1554 that the patient was discharged with the following

"Prescriptions; discharge instructions.” (See Exhibit G, page 717 to the MSJ, Exhibit "D"), An

10 expert cannot ignore the evidence. Quite simply there is no factual basis for Dr. Wagner's

ii opinion regarding standard of care.

12 It must also be noted that Dr. Wagner's declaration attributes the failure to Dr, Aflatoon

13 "and his staff." The nurses at the hospital who provided the discharge instructions are not the
14 staff/employees of Dr. Aflatoon. As noted in the Consent for Surgery form signed by Mr. Buso at

15 Memorial Care Orange Coast Medical Center, "it is the responsibility of the hospital and its

16 nursing staff to carry out the instructions of your physician(s) and surgeon(s). (See Exhibit G,

17 pages 560, 563 to the MSJ, Exhibit "E"). Further, the Conditions of Admissions were signed

18 by Mr. Buso as well. Paragraph 4 of the Conditions of Admissions describe the relationship of

19 the doctor to the hospital. The nursing staff are employees of the hospital, not of Dr. Aflatoon.

20 Dr. Aflatoon cannot be held responsible for their negligence. (See Exhibit G, page 574 to the
21 MSJ, Exhibit "F")

22 Mr. Buso was fully advised of the risk for a hemorrhage when he signed his consent

23 forms on August 11, 2016. At that time, Mr, Buso was advised of the specific risks of the

24 procedure which included "bleeding". (See Exhibit G, page 429 to the MSJ, Exhibit "G"), In

25 addition, Mr. Buso was advised of the risk of hemorrhage. (See Exhibit G, page 430 to the MSJ,

26 Exhibit "G"). Finally, Mr. Buso was advised that one of the risks of the procedure was death!
27

28 ' Pages 429 and 430 are actually a single document, but it is two sided so the pages have separate
numbers,
6
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(See Exhibit G, pages 429-430 to the MSJ, Exhibit "G"), Ms. Buso attended the August 11,

2016 visit between Dr. Aflatoon and Mr. Buso, but she has no recollection of the discussion

about the risks and benefits. (See Exhibit H, page 52, lines 11-18.)

Tt is appropriate for Dr. Aflatoon to rely on the nursing staff to provide the discharge
instructions. It is reasonable for Dr. Aflatoon to rely on the patient's signature that the discharge

instructions were provided. Finally, it is documented that the nurses provided the discharge
instructions. As such, there is no basis for Dr, Wagner's opinion which are conjectural or

speculative and not based on any evidence as required by Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center

(2004).
10 Thus, plaintiff has not presented any opposition to dispute that KAMRAN AFLATOON,

ii D.O., complied with the standard of care and the motion for summary judgment must be granted.
12 B The Declaration of Dr. Wagner is insufficient to create a

13 triable issue of fact on causation.

4 In Jones y. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, the trial court

15 granted respondent's motion for non-suit, which was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeal
16 held that:

17 "The law is will settled in a personal injury action, causation must be proved

18 within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert

19 testimony, Mete possibility alone is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case,"

20 (Citations omitted.) "A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the

21 absence of other reasonable causal connections, it becomes more likely than not,

22 that the injury was a result of its action." (Citations omitted), Jones at 402-403.

23 [emphasis added]

24 In the opposition by plaintiff to the Separate Statement of Facts, Nos. 7-8 are labeled as

25 disputed. In order to oppose this issue, counsel for plaintiff states that the facts are disputed

26 pursuant to the declaration of Dr. Wagner. However, there is no basis for his opinions regarding

27 causation,

28 An expert must state the factual basis of and provide a reasoned explanation for, his

7
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
opinions. (Bushling v. Fremont Medical Center, supra, 117 Cal.App.4" 493 at 510; Jennings v.

Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4 1108 at 1120-1121; Kelly v.

Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4" 519 at 529.)
Dr. Bhalla has provided a factual basis and reasoned explanation for his opinions.

Plaintiff has simply ignored this aspect of the motion for summary judgment as Dr. Wagner's
declaration does not provide an explanation as to how the care by Dr. Aflatoon caused any injury

to plaintiff. This failure to provide a declaration that lists the factual basis and provide a reasoned

explanation is detrimental to the opposition, as there is no basis for Plaintiff to defeat the
causation argument of Dr. Bhalla. As noted in the declaration of Dr, Bhalla, "given the patient's

10 conservative treatment plan including an epidural which did not provide relief, it was appropriate
ll to proceed with surgery. The surgery was appropriately performed as confirmed by the

12 radiographic imaging study taken during the August 24, 2016 procedure. Further, "bony"
13 bleeding is possible post-operatively and is not a breach in the standard of care. The autopsy

14 demonstrates that the screws are well fixed, i.e., there was no loosening of the screws. Further,

15 the major vessels were intact, no bleeding (the carotid arteries and veins, spinal canal and

16 vertebral arteries/veins were all intact). The surgical site was wel{ healed per the autopsy report,

17 i.e, the wound had healed. A hematoma, and subsequent death, are known complications from

18 the procedure. Neither Mr. Buso, nor his family, contacted Dr. Aflatoon after the procedure.

19 When Mr. Buso was seen by Kaur Priya, N.P., on September 2, 2016, the concern was sinusitis

20 and bronchitis. There is no mention or concern for a hematoma. Thus, to a reasonable degree of

21 medical probability, the death of Pedro Buso was not caused by any act or omission on behalf of

22 KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O, "

23 The declaration of Dr. Wagner does not explain how any care by Dr. Aflatoon caused any

24 injury to plaintiff. The declaration of Dr. Wagner states "had decedent and his wife been properly

25 advised as to the need to immediately contact Dr. Aflatoon's office in the event of persistent

26 coughing, shortness of breath and respiratory problems, the cervical bleeding would have been

27 discovered and treated." However, Dr. Wagner acknowledges that the patient was seen for
28 coughing by Kaur Priya, N.P. on September 2, 2016, but whether Ms. Priya properly addressed

8
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
the issues of do not pertain to whether the care by DR. AFLATOON caused the death. Further,

Dr. Wagner's declaration fails to address how there was any breach in the performance of the

surgery that caused the patient's death. As noted by Dr. Bhalla, a hematoma is a known

complication, the wound had healed, and the screws were well fixed on autopsy. Dr. Wagner

does not provide a reasoned explanation for his opinion as to how the surgery caused the patient's

death and is thus inadmissible. (See Doe v. Good Samaritan Hospital (2018) 23 Cal.App.Sth
653, 656, citing Kelley v, Trunk (1998) 66 Cal. App.4th 519, 524, stating that "where an expert

declaration does not provide the facts upon which its conclusions are based and a reasoned

explanation of how such facts led to the conclusions, it 'does not establish the absence of a

10 material fact issue for trial, as required for summary judgment.” See also Alexander v. Scripps

1 Memorial Hospital La Jolla (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 206, 229, as modified on denial of reh'g

12 (May 8, 2018), review filed (June 12, 2018), stating that "[w]ithout at least some minimal basis,

13 explanation, or reasoning, Dr. [Wagner]'s conclusions as to causation in his |] declaration had no

14 evidentiary value,") There is no basis for his opinion and as such, must be ignored.

15 As such, plaintiff failed to meet the third criteria of CACI 500, and there is actually no

16 dispute as to Separate Statement of Facts Nos. 7-8. Thus, the Motion of defendant KAMRAN

17 AFLATOON, D.O., for Summary Judgment must be granted.

18 iil. CONCLUSION

19 The opposition of plaintiff fails to dispute the material facts as alleged in the Motion of

20 for Summary Judgment of Defendant KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O. The opposition, including

21 the declaration of Dr, Wagner, is void of any factual basis for the stated opinion as to both

22 standard of care and causation. Further, Plaintiff improperly seeks to introduce new theories into

23 the case, Thus, plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to oppose the opinion of Dr. Bhalla

24 that KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O, met the standard of care and/or did not cause the death of

25 Mr. Buso, The Motion for Summary Judgment of the defendant is supported by the facts, the

26 medical records, the Declaration of Amandcep Bhalla, M.D., and statutory and case law, As

27 Mf
28 Mt

9
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
such, there is no dispute as to the Separate Statement of Facts, and this Court must grant the

summary judgment as to defendant, KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O.

DATED: October i °? 2019 SCHMID & VOILES

eh
ee
By
RODNEY&: "EORILINSON, ESO.
ADAM R. JAMES, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant,
KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O.

10
i

12
13

17
18

19
20

21
22

24
25

10
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DECLARATION OF ADAM R. JAMES, ESQ,

J, ADAM R. JAMES, ESQ., DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

1 I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of California. My

firm, Schmid & Voiles, represents defendant, KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O., in this matter. The

contents of this declaration are true, correct and within my personal knowledge.

2 A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, page 539, attached to the Motion for Summary

Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "A".

3 A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, page 609, attached to the Motion for Summary

Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "B".

10 4. A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, page 712, attached to the Motion for Summary

lt Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "C".

12 5 A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, page 717, attached to the Motion for Summary

13 Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "D".

14 6. A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, pages 560, 563, attached to the Motion for

15 Summary Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "E".
7
16 A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, pages 574-576, attached to the Motion for

17 Summary Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "F"’.

18 8 A courtesy copy of Exhibit G, pages 429-430, attached to the Motion for

19 Summary Judgment, is attached hereto for your convenience as Exhibit "G".

20 9 Attached hereto as Exhibit “H” is a true and correct copy of the relevant portions

21 of the deposition of Graciela Buso taken on April 1, 2019.

22 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the above is

23 true and correct. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

24 Executed on the 17 day of October, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

25 -o

26
27 Declarant

il
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Iam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action; my business address is Schmid & Voiles ("the firm"), 333
South Hope Street, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071. I am readily familiar with the business
practice for collection and processing mail with the United States Postal Service.

On October 17, 2019, I served the foregoing document described as; DEFENDANT,
KAMRAN AFLATOON, D.O,, REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARATION OF ADAM R. JAMES, ESQ. on the
interested parties in this action by placing a copy thereof addressed as follows:

Edward L. Fanucchi, Esq.
10
QUINLAN, KERSHAW & FANUCCHI, LLP
2125 Merced Street
i Fresno, CA 93721
Telephone: (559) 268-8771
12 Facsimile: (559) 268-5701
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS GRACIELA BUSO, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF
13 DECEDENT, PEDRO BUSO;PEDRO BUSO;KARLA BUSO;MARIA BUSO;PEDRO
14 BUSO AND MIGUEL BUSO

15 By Overnight Delivery [CCP §§1013(c)(d)] I placed such envelope for deposit with an
express service carrier by placing it for collection in an envelope or package designated by the
16 express service carrier with delivery fees paid at my business address on the date stated,
following the firm's ordinary business practice on the interested parties identified in the attached
17
Service List,
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
19 true and correct.

20 Executed October 17, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.
21
a hibe a _.
22 DORRIE PITACCIO.
Type or Print Name Signature
23

25
26

12
REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2

Page Poof]

Chart Copy Verification
of Written Instructions Given To Patient
2412016
by enor a pooner nner
MRE Dog
BusoFunes, Pedro QONET 7778 ae

My signature belo indivates that | understand aty physician has found me/my child slable for
discharge Irom the haspiial, [have bean provided a copy, hava had the opportunily to ask
questions, ard understand these discharge instructions.

Ail ® Babe .
Print Name/Relationship
PatientFamily Signature Date/Time

ew oy,
“2
ate, x
Bate/Time Print Name/Relavonship:
lever SGnatuee Gf Appropriate)

Level Wcaxinn)
2

Pa
top eN
sé Signature
ots te
Dateftime Pring Name

BusoPanes, Pedro (ua # Ou08777 78) Printed al W256 2d PM Page | ofl
tee

5330002
EXHIBIT "B"
MemorialCare Orange Coast Medical Patient. BUSOFUNES,PEDRO
Center IRN: 000577778
9920 Talbert Avenue DOB: (eemMERIE? Sex: M
MemorialCare. Fountain Valley CA 92708-5153 Acct #: 10659087
Complete Legal Chart
scent a 2
Nurs 1g Notes ‘ontinued)
Qutcome Eval by Manglicmot, Marites, RN at §/25/2016_§:37 AM (continued) Version 1,0f 1
Elecironically signed by Manglicmol, Marites, RN al 9/25/2018 5:37 AM
Revision History =
dtartiene S28 User: “Provider Type nay ‘Action vie
Fi B/2512018..9: ngiic 38 BIN eens -Realstered Nurse, iD. mreymssennenea
‘Aiebutlen wvormnton win the note text snot avaliable,

Qutcom: wal 2 t 8/25/2016.3: PI Version 4 of
‘Author. Maximo, Le! RN Service! (none) ‘Aulhor Type. Registered Nurse
Fitad: 8/26/2016 3:68 PI Date of Service: 8/25/2018 3:63 PM Ststus: Signed
Editor: Maximo, Laizel, RN (Registered Nurse)

Patient stable; tolerated diet w/o n/v; pain controlled; d/c home today; discharge instructions given using
language tine interpreter noted; patient verbalized understanding; no prescription given; prescription for pain
was given to patient prior to surgery pet patient; waiting for his ride at this time
Electronically signed by Maximo, Leizel, RN ai 8/25/2018 3:63 PM
Revision History 77 a
“Datertims. ser: SproviderType Ta “Action. we
251201 Lele! RM son Realstered,
Nar ete
Aiibutlon information within the note ex is not available,

BusoFunes, Pedro (MRN#000577778) Printed at 5/8/18 Page 26
0738

60390072
EXHIBIT "C"
MemorialCare Orange Coast Medical Patient: BUSOFUNES PEDRO.
Center MRN; 000577778
MemorialGare. 9920 Talbert Avenue
Fountain Valley CA 92708-5153
(GEER, Sex: M
Acct #:'40659087
Complete Legal Chart
i scons sae
lowshi ta. (OB25N4: 18/25/16 235!
POupCA Sranhic Thy August 26, 206 $ leoptinued)
Ts 4a, 4200 goo.
oe
take Total
4244 tBY e 1697
My 200 my
inte Cumulative 909 rol 1800 mi 4950 mt
Total, a vgn
at ae i
Un 00 mt,
Void / Output urinal enter amouni iy Urinal (enter amount in
snvtnseanneier ups FO, ROLE), MIMoa men
18. i ne 28, Sa.
Matia, PCAIPCT 08/25/15 Maria, PCA/P OBrEO16
. Ps my Ald 29
at To a
10mI nt
Outpul Cumulative 600 mil 4000 ri
“y
nh
vs sn wn reread
jet UO Cumulative 300 mi mi
Tate! ts tet
Fe 4
AatvityfLeve! of ‘upto bathroom -MAt bedrest /in bed hihi Up In hall “Aaa
Agsistance ne
Recorded by {ital Martinez-Orte, Mil] Martinga- Oni, {MM Marisez-Ortle,
Mara, POAIPCT oBiasit8 Maria, PCAPCT 08/26/18 Maria, PCAIPCT nBRa5H8
si at 28
ust nal sere
Be Sey FES oiceeiais Sia fs Siete iat bans nel
—— a
Recorded by (MN Martingz-Ortiz,
Matia, PCAPCT 0625/18
$244
RETIRED Discharge Planning AdultiPediatric- Thu August. 26 2016
Te Ee Fr ©
een 4663
Tie
nein
DA? Procass & Options Petlent and spouse al
Discussed With bedside, translation
broad by Maria, CNA
seein seminoma ss sesso
‘cel wag
. reteset we
RED~ ‘om
_pleerameeleeonton sentence a eer
Boas Pl Have DI
PI vind Needs... saa sabnusonionunnnanonny saree csesnstetteti erate hoteins oe lekcrntta
ent asin
Comments Pr ives in San Joaquin,
near Fresno, was direcled
10 OCMfor surgery by
workers comp company.
Plwas previously
independent with all
ADL's, drives, aithough
wife assists wilh driving
offen. No DME, no prior
SNF or HK,
‘Transportation bome to be
provided by his workers
comp company per pis
wife, She is to call them
with DC information when
wellable,,..2 Td ee
Reoorded by (Tu] Jaynes, TraE., RN
yeep a sri giggeegesgsnsee
‘CMiDGP Goal S: oO re LE P, iebko nae oy
Oc #1 eee ~
CMIDCP Conti be home with home:
BusoFunes, Pedro (MRN#000577778) Printed at 5/8/18 Page 129
0738

1400175
EXHIBIT "D"
ane — =

MemorialCare Orange Coast Medical Patient: BUSOFUNES,PEDRO
Center MRN: 000577778
$920 Talbert Avenue DOB; RBRERER Sex: M
Memoria AE, Fountain Valley CA 92708-5153. Acct #: 10659087
Complete Legal Chart
os ay y ny
jowsheet Data by-Day (08/25/16'0000--08/28/16 2369) (continued)
OT Assess it inpatient) - Thu August 25, 2046 (con!
9830 iy HB 0816. ce
DQ, mr a ee myer .
Recorded by
3/26/16 D928 0/2516 1034
DC/iTrat fore piration, «1 qust 26, 2016.
45, 46853 470 mr a i
Dischatgs Checklist SS
Anticipated staan on/ae Th
Bale. ses proce ett
Reonided by {TU} Jaynes, Thing
to oy,
na a en et FAC (Oo ication tone der. ev tleni’s continued ¢are)
Hearing (Serious) No “tta
Aitsioully: anieessnten a vm mm memarrmeermmrrisrmenrcrsnrsi at pase oe oat
Vision (Serious) No Ltd
Ditieulty?, mt ve — = evict
WetkinglClinbing No =Li
Stairs Dineuty?, wen sesenieot worsens preven
Brossing/Sathing “LM
Riise voce a seercemenesenet
fittendls, Pitta iy: a simon ses se
LDN ifigully?. aos lettre set
Recorded by ot Maximo, Laize!, RN
re sruaney nip 284 segues 1 me
De You Have No “Lit
Someatis Wie Shovid
Nolify Who Wit Assist
You with Post-
Risenares tor teow st tatato sestetctatasne
Recorded by (Lit) Maximo, Lee’, RN

Case Info

Judge

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 18, 2019

Case Filing Date

December 05, 2017

County

Parties

Aflatoon, Kamran, Medical Doctor Defendant
Ball, Michael F. Attorney for the Defendant
Buso, Graciela Plaintiff
Buso, Karla Plaintiff
Buso, Maria Plaintiff
Buso, Miguel Plaintiff
Buso, Pedro Plaintiff
Fanucchi, Edward L. Attorney for the Plaintiff
Pro Se Attorney for the Defendant
Tomlinson, Rodney G. Attorney for the Defendant
Valley Health Team Defendant
Zaki, Nagi Edward, Medical Doctor Defendant
Adam James Attorneys for Defendants
Adam Rosenthal Attorneys for Defendants

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

Motion-Secondary: Graciela Buso vs. Kamran Aflatoon, Medical Doctor

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties