1

2

3

4 Attomevs for Respondent,

5 ,M.D.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

vs.

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION

:. an individual and , an individual,

Claimants,

, M.D., an individual,

Respondent.

OIA NO.: 11815

(PR:OPOig91 ORDER GRANTING RF.SPONDENT

, M.D.'S , MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DATE: June 11, 2013 TIME: 10:00 a.m. [Via Telephonic Appearance]

18 Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, or alternatively, for summary

19 ad'udication, was heard before this Court on June 11, 2013.,A/() ~~;1:4! 20 Claimants: ~ ~ppeared for Respondent. After full 21 consideration of the evidence, the separate statements submitted by both parties, the notice

22 oflodgement of exhibits, the declarations of the experts, the authorities cited by counsel, as

23 well as oral argument at the hearing of this matter, the Court finds there is no triable issue 24 of material fact in this action for medical malpractice and loss of consortium and that the

25 moving party is entitled to summary judgment for the following reasons:

26 The claimants have failed to present any evidence regarding two of the essential 27 elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice - breach of the standard of care and 28 causation. Claimants are unable to establish that the treatment and care nrovided to

\\Server\wordp \176 lp-MSJ.prop.order.lh.wpd I [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT , M.D.'S , MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

by Dr. , M.D., fell below the standard of care. Based on Mrs.

2 presenting symptoms and past diagnoses, it was reasonable to diagnose her with cataracts in 3 her left eye and to recommend a phacoemulsification surgery to address her symptoms. The 4 phacoemulsification procedure performed on December I 0, 201 0, was performed in 5 accordance with the applicable standard of care. The development of post-operative corneal 6 edema is not indicative of negligence during surgery as this is a common and well known 7 complication associated with this procedure. After Mrs. developed corneal edema and 8 Descemet's membrane detachment, following the cataracts procedure, Dr. provided 9 post-operative care which complied with the applicable standard of care. The treatment

I 0 provided by Respondent in December of20 10, complied with the applicable standard of care 11 Furthermore, the claimants are unable to demonstrate that any action, or inaction, by 12 Dr. · resulted in injury to as Mrs. cannot demonstrate, to a degree 13 of medical certainty, that receiving different medical treatment would have resulted in a 14 better outcome. The post-operative care provided by Dr. was one of several options 15 open to him, within the applicable standard of care. It would be speculative to state that 16 following another treatment option would have resulted in a better outcome.

17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 18 is GRANTED and that judgment shall be entered forth with in favor of Respondent and 19 against Claimants.

20 Nothing in tms arbitration decision (or settlement agreement) prohibits or 21 restricts the enrollee from discussing or reporting the underlying facts, results, terms 22 and conditions of this decision (or settlement agreement) to the Department ofManaged 23 Health Care.

24

~: DATED: t((t~ 27

28 1\Server\wordp' \176 lp-MSJ.prop.order.lb.wpd 2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT ·, M.D.'S , MOTION FOR SUMMARY ruDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADruDICA TTON