Case Number: SC120708    Hearing Date: August 05, 2014    Dept: 92

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

ALEXANDRA MILEECE PETRE, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
SOHEIL KHODADADI, D.D.S., et al.
Defendant(s).

Case No.: SC120708

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #50
August 5, 2014

Defendant, Soheil Khodadadi, D.D.S.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.

Plaintiffs, Alexandra and Nathaniel Petre filed this action against Defendant, Soheil Khodadadi, D.D.S. for dental malpractice.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the complaint, contending the care and treatment of Plaintiff complied with the standard of care at all times and did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s 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.)

Defendant presents the Expert Declaration of Edmond Hewlett, D.D.S. in support of his motion for summary judgment. Hewlett sets forth his expert qualifications, indicates he has reviewed Plaintiff’s dental records, details the care and treatment of Plaintiff, and concludes that Defendant complied with the standard of care at all times and nothing he did caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.

The declaration of Dr. Hewlett is sufficient to meet the moving burden on summary judgment. There is no opposition and the time for any opposition to the motion has lapsed pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437(b)(2). Plaintiffs therefore necessarily failed to meet their burden to raise a triable issue of material fact, and the motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated this 5th day of August, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court