McCormick-Gordon v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center RB

3. The trial court rules that Dr. Rifkin is not qualified
and has no reasonable basis for his conclusions.
. The trial court struck Dr. Rifkin's testimony. (Gordon's Motion to
Augment, Ex. A; Cedars-Sinai's Motion to Augment, Ex. 2.) Plaintiffs
incorrectly assume that the trial court's only substantive summary judgment
order was a September 4, 2003 Minute Order that relied solely on
Dr. Rifkin's lack of qualifications. (See AOB 5, fn. 1; Gordon's Motion to
Augment, Ex. A.) In fact, the court actually issued a formal order on
October 1, 2003, in which it ruled that Dr. Rifkin "failed to state the basis
of his opinion regarding the standard of care in the community." (CT 2;
Cedars-Sinai's Motion to Augment, Ex. 1.) Indeed, at the motion hearing
the trial cOUl1 questioned Dr. Rifkin's declaration on both ofthese grounds.
(Cedars-Sinai's Motion to Augment, Ex. 2 [RT 1:17-24; 6:25-7:8].)
Without an admissible expert declaration, plaintiffs had no evidence
to counter Cedars-Sinai's expert evidence. The trial cOUl1 therefore granted
summary judgment. (CT 114.) Plaintiffs timely appealed. (CT 122.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Courts of appeal generally review summary judgments de novo.
(Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 666, 673-674.)
However, "it is also true that any determination underlying any order is
scrutinized under the test appropriate to such determination." (Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Ca1.4th 826,859.) The underlying
determination of whether an expert is qualified or whether there is a
7