Hanson

Hanson v. Grode

Good Law
76 Cal. App. 4th 601·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 396
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1999B122777California1,944 words

Opinion

Opinion

Masterson, J.

Plaintiff Herbert Hanson appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants Dr. Marshall Grode, Dr. Robert Scott Pashman, and West Coast Spine Institute. We reverse.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

“ ‘A defendant seeking summary judgment has met the burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established [or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action]. . . . Once the defendant’s burden is met, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action. ... In reviewing the propriety of a summary judgment, the appellate court independently reviews the record that was before the trial court. ... We must determine whether the facts as shown by the parties give rise to a triable issue of material fact. ... In making this determination, the moving party’s affidavits are strictly construed while…

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.