extreme departure standard in California

2020Cassini, in contrast, did not have specialized experience in diagnosing or treating MS, did not treat children with epilepsy, did not understand the difference between an extreme and ordinary departure from the standard of care,1 and based some of his opinions on representations by Yassa, which, he acknowledged, were in some instances inconsistent with her medical records. 1 Improper medical treatment constitutes “gross negligence” when the treatment demonstrates “an extreme departure from the standard of medical care, which [is] the equivalent of ‘want of even scant care . . . .’ ” (Gore v. B

2016We reject this contention. " 'If a person inflicts a dangerous wound on another, it is ordinarily no defense that inadequate medical treatment contributed to the victim's death. [Citations.] To be sure, when medical treatment is grossly improper, it may discharge liability for homicide if the maltreatment is the sole cause of death and hence an unforeseeable intervening cause.' " (People v. Scott (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1188, 1215 .) Improper medical treatment constitutes "gross negligence" when the treatment demonstrates "an extreme departure from the standard of medical care, which . . . [is] the

2023(See Decker, supra, 209 Cal. App.3d at p. 361 [surfer drowned after rescue personnel allegedly used an ineffective rescue technique]; Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344, 364-365 [skier was injured when snowcat operator allegedly drove too fast down ski run and collided with her].) In contrast, grants of summary judgment are often reversed where there is evidence that could show a want of even scant care or extreme departure from the 12 standard of care.

2023(See Decker, supra, 209 Cal. App.3d at p. 361 [surfer drowned after rescue personnel allegedly used an ineffective rescue technique]; Willhide-Michiulis v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 344, 364-365 [skier was injured when snowcat operator allegedly drove too fast down ski run and collided with her].) In contrast, grants of summary judgment are often reversed where there is evidence that could show a want of even scant care or extreme departure from the 12 standard of care.

2023In these cases, courts have most often affirmed grants of summary judgment where the plaintiff had no evidence showing an extreme departure from the standard of care (see Joshi v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 814 , 828-829 [plaintiff could not recover against health club even though it knew sauna needed light bulb replaced prior to her trip and fall accident]; Brown v. El Dorado Union High School Dist. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1003 , 1029 [high school football player could not recover against school district for traumatic brain injury suffered during game because he was warned abo

2016(See Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185-1186 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 552 , 80 P.3d 656 ] [trial court properly denied amendment of complaint where nothing in the plaintiffs’ pleadings or appellate briefs pointed to such extreme conduct as to support a finding of gross negligence]; Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 116 ] [leave to amend need not be granted where no prospect of saving the pleading by amendment is apparent].) Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the condition of the floor in the men’s shower room evidenced an extr

2016(See Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185-1186 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 552 , 80 P.3d 656 ] [trial court properly denied amendment of complaint where nothing in the plaintiffs’ pleadings or appellate briefs pointed to such extreme conduct as to support a finding of gross negligence]; Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 116 ] [leave to amend need not be granted where no prospect of saving the pleading by amendment is apparent].) Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the condition of the floor in the men’s shower room evidenced an extr

2016(See Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1175, 1185-1186 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 552 , 80 P.3d 656 ] [trial court properly denied amendment of complaint where nothing in the plaintiffs’ pleadings or appellate briefs pointed to such extreme conduct as to support a finding of gross negligence]; Lodi v. Lodi (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 628, 631 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 116 ] [leave to amend need not be granted where no prospect of saving the pleading by amendment is apparent].) Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the condition of the floor in the men’s shower room evidenced an extr

2016(See People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 155 (Catlin).) With this foundation in mind, we determine that the three declarations of Dr. Vitiello fail to establish Gardhouse received grossly improper medical treatment and that it was the sole cause of his death. 31 Here, it is undisputed that Gardhouse experienced blunt force head trauma that required medical care.

1986(Yellin v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1058-1059 ; Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 184, 198 ("an extreme departure from the standard of medical care"); accord, Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 31 Cal.3d 124, 138 ; Mulligan v. Hearing Aid Dispensers Examining Com. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1006 ("generally accepted practices and procedures within the professional community").) Again, we have no expertise to determine the efficacy of the procedures involved.

1986(Yellin v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1058-1059 ; Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 184, 198 ("an extreme departure from the standard of medical care"); accord, Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 31 Cal.3d 124, 138 ; Mulligan v. Hearing Aid Dispensers Examining Com. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1006 ("generally accepted practices and procedures within the professional community").) Again, we have no expertise to determine the efficacy of the procedures involved.

1980The Penalty Imposed by the Board Was Valid Petitioner contends that the more onerous penalty prescribed in the board’s second decision denied him due process of law, citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) 395 U.S. 711, 726 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 670 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 ].

1980The Penalty Imposed by the Board Was Valid Petitioner contends that the more onerous penalty prescribed in the board’s second decision denied him due process of law, citing North Carolina v. Pearce (1969) 395 U.S. 711, 726 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 670 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 ].