Spies et al v. El Dorado County et al

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/22/2018 GRANTING-IN-PART 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Hunt, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

LAWRENCE SPIES, SR., and
LINDA SPIES, Individually and
as Successors in Interest of
LAWRENCE SPIES, Jr.
(deceased);

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 16-02232

WBS GGH

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
EL DORADO COUNTY;CALIFORNIA
FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.;
MARSHALL MEDICAL CENTER; JOHN
D’AGOSTINI; RANDY PESHON;
MATT FOXWORTHY; JACKIE NOREN;
ROBIN HOPE; RAYMOND HERR,
M.D.; LISA ISSACSON; TAYLOR
FITHIAN, M.D.; MARK
HANGEBRAUCK; JOHN J. SKRATT,
M.D.; ALEXIS F. LIESER, M.D.;
DOES 1-50;
Defendants.

23
24

Before the court is defendant Marshall Medical’s Motion

25

for summary judgment. (Docket No. 37.)

26

(“Dr. Skratt) joins in the Motion.

27
28

Defendant John J. Skratt

“Under California law, a hospital is liable for a
physician’s malpractice when the physician is ‘actually employed
1

1

by or is the ostensible agent of the hospital.’”

2

Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr., Civ. No. 15-160 WHO, 2017 WL 2834001, at

3

*4

4

under California law, ostensible authority is for a trier of fact

5

to resolve and the issue should not be decided by an order

6

granting summary judgment.”

7

Cal. App. 4th 631, 639 (3d Dist. 2015) (citation omitted).

8

Ostensible agency can be inferred “from the mere fact that the

9

plaintiff sought treatment at the hospital without being informed

Sampson v.

(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2017) (citation omitted).1

“Generally,

Whitlow v. Rideout Mem’l Hosp., 237

10

that the doctors were independent contractors.”

11

Hosp. of San Bernardino, 99 Cal. App. 4th 1448, 1457 (4th Dist.

12

2002).

13

informed that Dr. Skratt was an independent contractor.

14

Specifically the hospital chart contains an admission form which

15

states “PHYSICIANS ARE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL PRACTIONERS.”

16

However, that form is unsigned.

17

No. 78-3).)

18

Dr. Skratt was an ostensible agent of Marshall Medical.

19

Mejia v. Cmty.

Here, the evidence is disputed as to whether decedent was

(Pls.’ Suppl. Br. Ex. B (Docket

Thus, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether

Additionally, there are disputed issues of fact as to

20

whether Dr. Skratt’s conduct met the applicable standard of care.

21

Defendants’ expert witness, Dr. David Barnes, an emergency

22

medicine physician, testified that in his opinion, to a

23

reasonable degree of medical certainty, Dr. Skratt’s evaluation

24

of the decedent was within the standard of care.

25

David Barnes ¶¶ 1, 7 (Docket No. 40).)

26

expert witness, Dr. Donald Maisel, also an emergency medicine

27
28

1

(Decl. of Dr.

In response, plaintiffs’

There is no evidence of negligence on the part of the
nurses employed by Marshall Medical.
2

1

physician, testified that in his opinion, to a reasonable degree

2

of medical certainty, Dr. Skratt’s evaluation of the decedent did

3

not meet the applicable standard of care.

4

Maisel ¶¶ 1, 19 (Docket No. 54-1).)

5

deny the Motion for summary judgment as to Dr. Skratt.

(Decl. of Dr. Donald

Accordingly, the court must

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for

7

summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART.

8

Plaintiffs’ claims against Marshall Medical, to the extent they

9

are based on the care provided by the nurses working at Marshall

10

Medical, are hereby DISMISSED.

Remaining in this case are

11

plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful death and professional negligence

12

against Dr. Skratt, individually, and Marshall Medical to the

13

extent they are based on Dr. Skratt’s care.

14

Dated:

January 22, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3