The California Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that dismissed a medical malpractice case brought by Lashawnda Shanell Rhymes against Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Permanente). The court's decision, filed on October 20, 2026, confirms the arbitrator's ruling that Rhymes failed to provide necessary expert testimony to support her claims. This ruling is significant as it emphasizes the importance of expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases.
Rhymes claimed that a nurse at Permanente caused severe damage to her vascular and nervous systems during a blood draw. However, when her arbitration hearing took place, Rhymes appeared without an expert witness. The court found that the arbitrator acted within his rights by granting a nonsuit, which effectively ended Rhymes's case.
Background
The dispute began in March 2022 when a nurse at Permanente performed a blood draw on Rhymes. Rhymes alleged that the procedure was conducted improperly, leading to serious injuries. Following the incident, Rhymes initiated arbitration proceedings against Permanente in February 2023, claiming medical malpractice.
During the arbitration process, Permanente filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by an expert opinion stating that the nurse had adhered to the standard of care. In response, Rhymes provided an expert declaration from Sherri Bentley, a registered nurse, who argued that the blood draw was performed below the standard of care. This led to the withdrawal of Permanente's motion, and an arbitration hearing was scheduled for October 2, 2024.
Despite the scheduled hearing, Rhymes failed to comply with the arbitration rules regarding expert witness disclosures. She did not provide the necessary information about her expert witness, Bentley, nor did she ensure Bentley's presence at the hearing. When the hearing commenced, the arbitrator addressed the lack of expert testimony, which was critical to Rhymes's case.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Permanente, affirming the arbitrator's decision to grant a nonsuit due to Rhymes's failure to present an expert witness. The arbitrator stated, "[Rhymes] will not be able to proceed in this [medical] malpractice action without a witness to testify as to the standard of care, which is critical in this case." The ruling emphasized that expert testimony is essential in medical malpractice claims to establish whether the standard of care was met.
The arbitrator further explained that Rhymes had appeared unprepared for the hearing and had not made adequate efforts to secure her expert witness. The court found no abuse of discretion in the arbitrator's decision and noted that Rhymes's excuses for her lack of preparation were not compelling enough to warrant a continuance.
Impact
This ruling underscores the necessity for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases to adhere to procedural rules, particularly regarding the designation and presentation of expert witnesses. The court's affirmation of the nonsuit highlights the critical role that expert testimony plays in establishing the standard of care in such cases.
Furthermore, the decision serves as a reminder that self-represented litigants, like Rhymes, are held to the same standards as those represented by attorneys. The court stated, "Although we appreciate the challenges of appearing as a self-represented litigant, Rhymes is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants." This aspect of the ruling may influence how future cases involving self-represented individuals are handled.
What's Next
Following this ruling, Rhymes has the option to appeal the decision, but the court's affirmation of the nonsuit makes it unlikely that a different outcome would be reached. There are currently no related cases pending that could impact the ruling in this matter. The court's decision stands as a significant precedent for future medical malpractice arbitration cases in California.