Elcome

Elcome v. Chin

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 631·110 Cal. App. 4th 310·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1027·2003 Daily Journal DAR 7539·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6008
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2003E031896California4,262 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff sued two doctors and a hospital for medical malpractice. The trial court granted separate motions for summary judgment in favor of one of the doctors, Michael Chin, M.D., and the hospital, Tenet Healthsystem Heritage, Inc., doing business as Rancho Springs Medical Center (Tenet). The other defendant doctor, Tien Gu, M.D., is not a party to this appeal.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgments entered in favor of Dr. Chin and Tenet. She contends that the trial court did not properly apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in ruling on the motions for summary judgment. We affirm.

We conclude that both motions were properly granted. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that the defendants were negligent, or caused her injuries. In this opinion we address the quantum of evidence necessary for a plaintiff to raise triable issues of material fact, in opposing a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, where the plaintiff relies on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Background

On May 25, 2000, plaintiff was admitted to Rancho Springs Medical Center where she underwent “certain…

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.