Hakeem v. West Anaheim Medical Center

Full title: ABDUL HAKEEM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER…

Court: Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Apr 23, 2007

G037313 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2007)

Opinion

G037313

4-23-2007

ABDUL HAKEEM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST ANAHEIM MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent.

Abdul Hakeem in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Dummit, Briegleb, Boyce & Buchholz for Defendant and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Sills

Appellant Abdul Hakeem was injured in an auto accident on April 9, 2003, and received treatment at West Anaheim Medical Center. Hakeem claimed that the hospital failed to provide a minimum standard of care, and brought a medical malpractice suit, in propria persona. On April 13, 2006, the hospital moved for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. The motion was supported by expert testimony. Hakeem, although explicitly informed that he must provide an expert witness to oppose the motion for summary judgment, failed to present any expert testimony as to the standard of care of the nursing staff. After oral argument, the motion for summary judgment was granted on May 4, 2006, and notice of entry of the judgment was filed on May 9. The notice of appeal was filed on July 3, 2006.

Under section 437c, subsection (p), subsection (2), the hospital "has met [its] 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 . . . . Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff . . . may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto."

Hakeems not having proffered any expert testimony on the issue of the standard of care to establish an element of his cause of action (breach of that standard of care), the judgment against him must be affirmed. Respondent is to recover its costs on appeal.

We Concur:

BEDSWORTH, J.

OLEARY, J.