Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00844/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00844-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Bradley Medina and Svetlana Krivencheva bring claims for medical negligence, lack of 

informed consent, and loss of consortium against Courtney L. Mapes, M.D. On November 11, 2024, 

the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations do grant in part and deny in part 

Defendant Mapes’ motion summary judgment. (Doc. 72.) The magistrate judge recommended (1) 

denying the motion as to Plaintiff Medina’s claim for medical malpractice; (2) granting the motion as 

to Plaintiff Medina’s lack of informed consent claim; and (3) denying the motion as to Plaintiff 

Krivencheva’s loss of consortium claim. (Doc. 72 at 14, 16.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any 

objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 72 at 17.) Plaintiffs filed objections on December 20, 

2024. (Doc. 73.) Defendant Mapes replied to the objections on January 15, 2024. (Doc. 74.) 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the action. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, including the objections and reply, the Court concludes the 

BRADLEY MEDINA, et al.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COURTNEY MAPES, M.D.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1: 21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG 

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT 

MAPES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Docs. 52, 72)

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 75 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. The objections 

address only the informed consent claim, but do not meaningfully call into question the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to grant the Defense motion on that claim. Instead, Plaintiffs once again 

point to their allegations that Defendant failed to disclose the risks of not undergoing certain 

procedures and treatments. (See Doc. 73.) As the Findings and Recommendations correctly explain, 

“[i]f the procedure is one which should have been proposed, then the failure to recommend it would be 

negligence under ordinary medical negligence principles and there is no need to consider an additional 

duty of disclosure.” (Doc. 72 at 16 (quoting Vandi v. Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 7 Cal.App.4th 

1064, 1070 (1992)).) Plaintiffs’ objections are therefore without merit. 

Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 22, 2024 (Doc. 72) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Defendant Medina’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52) is GRANTED in part 

and DENIED in part as follows: 

a. Defendant is granted summary judgment on Plaintiff Medina’s lack of informed 

consent claim. 

b. Defendant is denied summary judgment on Plaintiff Medina’s medical 

negligence claim and Plaintiff Krivencheva’s loss of consortium claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 

Case 1:21-cv-00844-JLT-EPG Document 75 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2