Johnson v. Sup. Ct.
Respondent, Superior Court, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants and real parties in interest, in the medical malpractice action filed by plaintiff and petitioner. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion because it found plaintiff's expert declaration in opposition to the motion was "patently inadequate" and it refused to consider a late-filed amended declaration. Plaintiff filed this action for a writ of mandate. Court granted an alternative writ and stayed the proceedings. Court concluded that defendants' expert declaration was insufficient to establish facts from which a reasonable trier of fact would find the defendants acted within the standard of care. Therefore, even if plaintiff's expert declaration was inadmissible, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment. Court issued a peremptory writ.
Comments on Johnson v. Sup. Ct.