TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants John T. Alexander, II, M.D., John T. Alexander, II, M.D., Inc., Alexander Surgery Center and Alexander Cosmetic Surgery's motion for summary adjudication is denied to the invasion of privacy cause of action (fourth cause of action), and granted to the causes of action for sexual battery (second cause of action), negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("NIED" and "IIED", third cause of action), and sexual harassment (the fifth cause of action). Defendants have not challenged the first cause of action for medical battery.
The motion for summary adjudication to the second cause of action for sexual battery is granted. There are three elements to a claim for medical battery under a violation of conditional consent: the patient must show his consent was conditional; the doctor intentionally violated the condition while providing treatment; and the patient suffered harm as a result of the doctor's violation of the condition. (Conte v. Girard
Hearing Date
March 01, 2018
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants John T. Alexander, II, M.D., John T. Alexander, II, M.D., Inc., Alexander Surgery Center and Alexander Cosmetic Surgery's motion for summary adjudication is denied to the invasion of privacy cause of action (fourth cause of action), and granted to the causes of action for sexual battery (second cause of action), negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("NIED" and "IIED", third cause of action), and sexual harassment (the fifth cause of action). Defendants have not challenged the first cause of action for medical battery.
The motion for summary adjudication to the second cause of action for sexual battery is granted. There are three elements to a claim for medical battery under a violation of conditional consent: the patient must show his consent was conditional; the doctor intentionally violated the condition while providing treatment; and the patient suffered harm as a result of the doctor's violation of the condition. (Conte v. Girard