Stephens v. Patrick

Full title: WILLIE F. STEPHENS, SR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUE PATRICK…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Feb 17, 2017

A148219 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017)

Opinion

A148219

02-17-2017

WILLIE F. STEPHENS, SR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUE PATRICK, Defendant and Respondent.

SIMONS, Acting P.J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV1403328)

Plaintiff and appellant Willie F. Stephens, Sr., an inmate at San Quentin state prison, appeals following the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Sue Patrick, a registered nurse who treated appellant. Appellant asserted causes of action for "General Negligence" and "Intentional Tort," alleging respondent injured him while performing an ear lavage.

Respondent submitted an expert declaration from a doctor in support of her motion for summary judgment. The doctor reviewed appellant's medical records and deposition testimony and opined there was no evidence that respondent's care was negligent or that appellant sustained injury to his ears. The trial court found the records relied on by the expert supported his opinions, and the court concluded the expert declaration "negates the elements of breach of duty, causation and injury to [appellant's] ears." Because appellant failed to introduce competing expert evidence, the court concluded appellant failed to show there were triable issues as to his two causes of action. The court entered a judgment of dismissal and this appeal followed.

On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in relying on the declaration of respondent's expert in granting the motion for summary judgment. However, appellant fails to support his contention with any citations to legal authority showing such reliance was improper. The trial court did not err. (See Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607 [" ' "When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence." ' "].)

DISPOSITION

The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________

SIMONS, Acting P.J. We concur. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.