Zaragoza v. Adam (Jan. 31, 2025, A168100) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2025 WL 630923], ordered published Feb. 27, 2025
Sabrina Zaragoza was admitted to Mercy Medical Center Merced with abdominal pain and later diagnosed with a bile leak. Dr. Nadir Adam performed surgery to remove her gall bladder. Following complications, including a bile leak and additional surgeries, Zaragoza sued Dr. Adam for medical malpractice. Dr. Adam filed a motion for summary judgment, which was supported by a medical expert declaration stating that Dr. Adam performed the surgery within the standard of care and that Zaragoza’s complications were caused by a subsequent surgery performed by another doctor. Zaragoza did not file an opposing medical expert declaration but argued that Dr. Adam’s supporting declaration was inadequate. The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Adam, and Zaragoza appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Dr. Adam failed to meet his initial burden of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and directed the trial court to deny the summary judgment motion. The court found that the medical expert’s declaration was too conclusory because it lacked factual details and a reasoned explanation for his opinions. For example, the medical expert failed to explain what acts constitute due care when performing gallbladder removal surgery, how they are related to preventing a bile leak, or how he determined that the bile leak was not due to surgical error. The court also rejected Dr. Adam’s argument that the expert declaration was adequate in light of Zaragoza’s failure to articulate any specific factual basis for her claim that Dr. Adams was negligent, explaining that plaintiffs need not allege negligence claims with particularity.
