McCurry

McCurry v. Singh CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 26, 2024C098433California3,171 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Filed 8/26/24 McCurry v. Singh CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

DANIEL MCCURRY et al., C098433

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2020- 00276858-CU-MM-GDS) v.

INDER SINGH,

Defendant and Respondent.

Summary judgment in favor of a defendant in a professional malpractice action is proper where the plaintiff does not show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care. (Armato v. Baden (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 885, 893.) A physician does not owe a duty of care until a physician-patient relationship exists. (Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 206, 235 (Alexander).) Plaintiffs and siblings Daniel McCurry and Carie Powell sued defendant Dr.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.