McCurry

McCurry v. Singh

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2024C098433California3,212 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Filed 8/26/24; certified for publication 9/10/24 (order attached)

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. Inder Singh for malpractice, contending he violated a duty of care when he refused to treat their

1 mother, decedent Carol McCurry. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Singh. The court ruled that Dr. Singh did not owe decedent a duty of care because he did not affirmatively treat her and thus was not…

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.