WATKINS VS ANDREW PAUL ORDON M.D.

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR SUMMARY WATKINS VS ANDREW CVRI2403972 ADJUDICATION ON 2ND AMENDED PAUL ORDON M.D. COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling:

SUSTAIN Defendant Andrew Paul Ordon, M.D.’s (“Ordon”) evidentiary objections, Nos. 1 through 30, to Plaintiff’s Evidence in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the opposition is replete with hearsay, speculation, conjecture, and statements based on medical reports and writings that have not been properly authenticated. The seminal case of Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 735, provides that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment must submit relevant medical expert declarations in opposition to the Defendant’s medical expert declaration offered in support of the motion for summary judgment. Here, Plaintiff pulls snippets from medical records and writings, and recounts conversations that she has had with various consulting physicians, as evidence in support of her opposition. This is not allowed under the rules of evidence.

GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Medical Battery

Defendant has presented admissible evidence that Plaintiff consented to a facelift surgery and that Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant intentionally performed a different or unauthorized procedure. Plaintiff’s assertion that silicone was injected rests solely on speculation and her interpretation of subsequent medical consultations. Defendant has met his initial burden of summary judgment and Plaintiff has failed to show a triable issue of material fact.

Fraud

Plaintiff cannot establish the elements of fraud because there is no evidence that Ordon knowingly made a false statement or intentionally concealed a material fact with intent to defraud Plaintiff. Plaintiff has testified that she did not observe any injections during surgery, and she admits that she has no personal knowledge that Ordon injected her with silicone. No physician has ever told her that Defendant injected silicone. Plaintiff’s belief that silicone was injected rests solely on her interpretation of subsequent medical consultations. Plaintiff fails to meet her burden of creating a triable issue of material fact.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiff cannot establish the required elements of a claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED); extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to harm or severe emotional distress. The undisputed evidence shows that Defendant provided elective cosmetic care for which Plaintiff gave written informed consent, performed the procedures reflected in the operative report, did not inject liquid silicone or any filler,