Retired Judge Carl Holmer of Nevada City, CA; incompetent boob

The state of California presented Carl Anders Holmer with a law license in 1973 after he graduated from the University of California Davis School of Law.

It should be noted that former Gov. George Deukmejian was duped into appointing Carl as a Nevada County Superior Court Judge in 1990. Carl did not receive the appointment because he was the most qualified attorney in the greater Nevada County area, he received it because he had proven to be a reliable lackey for the local political hacks.

FYI: Carl retired from his position as a Nevada County Superior Court judge in October 2010.

In one matter, Judge Holmer was assigned by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court to preside over a case by brought by Christi McAlpine against Dr. Daniel A. Norman, a gastroenterologist in South Lake Tahoe, California. She claims that through negligence on his part, she suffered injuries during his performing colonoscopies on her in 2015.

In seeking to have Ms. McAlpine’s case tossed, Dr. Norman presented a declaration from an expert in gastrointestinal disorders, John Cello, director of the University of California, San Francisco Esophageal Motility Center.

Subsequently, Ms. McAlpine appealed Judge Holmer’s asinine ruling to the local Court of Appeal. In overruling Holmer’s dismissal of McAlpine’s lawsuit, the court stated in part as follows.

• The expert declaration presented by Norman amounts to little more than a bare statement that McAlpine’s treatment was within the standard of care.”
• “It does not elaborate or explain why Norman’s treatment was within the standard of care, except to suggest that a perforation is a ‘known risk of a colonoscopy,’ of which McAlpine was aware, having signed an informed consent form before the procedure.”
• “Norman’s position appears to be that since a perforated colon is a known risk of the procedure, the perforated colon suffered by McAlpine necessarily was within the standard of care. This does not follow.”

The appellate court continued by stating:

• “As McAlpine argues, one of her central theories of liability was that Norman negligently failed to check for a perforation before terminating the colonoscopy.”
• “As the party moving for summary judgment, Norman had the burden to show he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any theory of liability reasonably embraced within the allegations of McAlpine’s complaint.”

It goes without saying that Carl doesn’t much give a damn when he’s overturned (rebuked in truth) by the appellate court since he is well aware that no California judge has ever been tossed off the bench for being an incompetent boob. In addition, he certainly isn’t concerned with the cost to the taxpayers of having his asinine ruling overturned.

As we speak (ca. September 2020), Carl continues to sit as an assigned Retired Senior Judge via appointments by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.