Case Number: LC098183    Hearing Date: July 09, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

OKSANA ADAMSON,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
JONATHAN ZIV, D.D.S., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: LC098183

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #27
July 9, 2014

Defendant, Jonathan Ziv, D.D.S.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.

Plaintiff, Oksana Adamson filed this action against Defendants, Jonathan Ziv, D.D.S. and Ziv Studio for Smile Design for dental malpractice.

Defendants move for summary judgment. Defendants support their motion with the expert declaration of William Ardary, M.D., D.D.S. Dr. Ardary sets forth his expert credentials, states what records he reviewed, details Defendant’s care and treatment of Plaintiff, and ultimately concludes that Defendant’s care and treatment of Plaintiff complied with the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s claimed injuries.

The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317. Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s testimony. Id. If the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to a medical malpractice action, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded. Id. A medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because he chooses one medically acceptable method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice. CACI 506. Likewise, a medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because his efforts are unsuccessful or he makes an error that was reasonable under the circumstances. CACI 505.

Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons. See Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App4th 836, 844. “‘When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.’“ (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

The Expert Declaration of Dr. Ardary is sufficient to meet Defendants’ moving burden to establish it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 6/25/14. As of 7/03/14, the Court has not received any opposition to the motion. Plaintiff therefore necessarily failed to meet her burden, and the motion is granted.

Dated this 9th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court