Gutierrez v. Tostado et al. (California Supreme Court case no.S283128)
(On behalf of CAOC, filed an amicus curiae brief seeking reversal of the Court of Appeal. Ben argues that a driver who is rear-ended by an ambulance transporting a patient on a non-emergent basis with its siren and emergency lights off should not be considered medical malpractice.)
Montoya v. Superior Court (Fowler), Case No. G064459
(2025, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three)
(This medical malpractice case held that when a healthcare provider’s negligence makes it impossible to determine the extent of harm, the burden of proof on causation may shift to the defendant. It is the first California decision to apply burden-shifting principles to a malpractice omission.)
Zaragoza v. Adam, Case No. A168100
(2024, First Appellate District, Division Four)
(This medical malpractice case held that expert declarations must specifically address how the surgery was performed—not merely state that the outcome was a recognized complication. A conclusory declaration lacking analysis of the surgeon’s technique was found insufficient.)
Lombardo v. Gramercy Court, Case No. C098857
(2024, Third Appellate District)
(The court found that an agent’s power of attorney, even if broad, did not authorize her to bind the principal or heirs to arbitration. In the context of wrongful death claims against a skilled nursing facility, arbitration could not be compelled without clear authority.)
Hearden v. Windsor, Case No. C098736
(2024, Third Appellate District)
(In this elder abuse and medical malpractice case, the court upheld denial of arbitration under CCP § 1281.2 due to the risk of conflicting rulings. It also clarified that family members cannot be bound by arbitration agreements unless true agency is shown.)
Kernan v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. A162750
(2022, First Appellate District, Division Four)
(This medical malpractice case involving a stillbirth clarified that the statute of limitations does not begin to run merely upon a poor outcome. Without reason to suspect negligence, a plaintiff is not put on inquiry notice under CCP § 340.5.)
Grabowski v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Case No. D076968
(2021, Fourth Appellate District, Division One)
(This medical malpractice arbitration case was reversed due to the arbitrator’s failure to disclose an ex parte communication with defense counsel. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and impartiality in private arbitrations.)
Filosa v. Alagappan, Case No. A156412
(2020, First Appellate District, Division Four)
(This medical malpractice case clarified that under MICRA, “injury” includes the point at which a condition becomes significantly worse—not just the initial onset of symptoms. The decision addressed how CCP § 340.5’s three-year cap applies in delayed-diagnosis cases.)
McAlpine v. Norman, Case No. C088327
(2020, Third Appellate District)
(This medical malpractice case held that informed consent does not shield a provider from liability for negligently performed procedures. The court emphasized that acknowledging a known risk does not excuse substandard care.)
John Doe v. Good Samaritan Hospital, Case No. F073934
(2018, Fifth Appellate District)
(This medical malpractice case held that a defendant’s expert must articulate both the applicable standard of care and the reasoning behind their opinion. A vague or conclusory expert declaration is not sufficient to support summary judgment.)