2. Kim v. City of Hope
BC558635
Motion of defendant Judy Wang, M.D. for summary judgment is granted.
Defendant Wang has submitted expert testimony (1) that her care and treatment of plaintiff was within the standard of care [UMF No. 28, and evidence cited; Cole Decl., ¶¶ 10-13] and (2) that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no purported standard of care violations by defendant Wang were a substantial factor in causing or contributing to plaintiff’s alleged injuries [UMF No. 29, and evidence cited; Beydoun Decl., ¶¶ 11-19]. This expert evidence is sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff to raise triable issues of fact through expert evidence setting forth specific factual breaches of the standard of care. Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607.
In opposition, plaintiff submits one expert declaration which recounts statements made to the expert by the plaintiff and then opines, apparently based on those statements alone without any indication medical records
Hearing Date
February 03, 2017
Type
Med Malpractice (Drs & Surgeons) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
2. Kim v. City of Hope
BC558635
Motion of defendant Judy Wang, M.D. for summary judgment is granted.
Defendant Wang has submitted expert testimony (1) that her care and treatment of plaintiff was within the standard of care [UMF No. 28, and evidence cited; Cole Decl., ¶¶ 10-13] and (2) that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no purported standard of care violations by defendant Wang were a substantial factor in causing or contributing to plaintiff’s alleged injuries [UMF No. 29, and evidence cited; Beydoun Decl., ¶¶ 11-19]. This expert evidence is sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff to raise triable issues of fact through expert evidence setting forth specific factual breaches of the standard of care. Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607.
In opposition, plaintiff submits one expert declaration which recounts statements made to the expert by the plaintiff and then opines, apparently based on those statements alone without any indication medical records