Case Number: BC477690    Hearing Date: September 16, 2014    Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

LUSINE KOSHKARYAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN VANORE, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.
Case No.: BC 477690

Hearing Date: September 16, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFENDANT JOHN VANORE, M.D.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Lusine Koshkaryan (“Koshkaryn”) filed this medical malpractice action on January 25, 2012. The charging allegation is that Defendant John Vanore, M.D. (“Vanore”) negligently performed a tonsillectomy which required Koshkaryan to undergo a revision tonsillectomy.
Vanore filed this motion for summary judgment on September 19, 2013, setting it for hearing December 9, 2013 in Department 92. The case was reassigned to Dept. 97 and the motion was set in this Court for hearing today.
CCP §437c(o) provides that a cause of action has no merit if one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established, or a defendant establishes an affirmative defense to that cause of action. CCP §437c(p)(2) provides that a defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Vanore’s motion for summary judgment challenges Koshkaryan’s ability to establish the elements of breach of the standard of care and causation.
Vanore’s motion is supported by the declaration of Dennis Maceri, M.D. (“Maceri”). Maceri’s declaration contains sufficient information to qualify him as an expert in the area of otolaryngology. ¶¶ 1-6. Maceri’s declaration indicates that he has reviewed the medical records from John Vanore, M.D., White Memorial Medical Center, Stephen Cooper, M.D. , Valley Presbyterian Hospital and Garnik Yegyan, M.D., and that he has also reviewed transcripts of Koshkaryan’s deposition. ¶¶ 7-8. The medical records are adequately introduced into evidence by way of the declaration of attorney Gary Dennis.
Maceri’s declaration contains a summary of the facts as gleaned from the medical records and deposition testimony, and concludes with the following opinions:

¿ [i]t is my opinion that John F. Vanore, M.D.’s care and treatment of the plaintiff was within the standard of care for otolaryngologists practicing in Southern California at all times pertinent to this action, including the years 2010 and 2011. ¶ 26. See also, ¶ 9.

¿ It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that any of plaintiff’s alleged difficulty swallowing was a normal result of the surgery, which would have healed with time, and cannot be attributed to the mucosal band in her throat. ¶ 26.

¿ It is my opinion that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that the plaintiff’s symptoms and cosmetic concerns could have been addressed by Dr. Vanore in his office instead of a secondary “reparative” procedure. It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that the secondary procedure was essentially elective. The second “revision tonsillectomy” produced no tissue sample – no evidence that any excess tonsil tissue was removed. ¶ 28.

¿ It is also my opinion that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, nothing Dr. Vanore did or failed to do was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. ¶ 29. See also ¶ 10.

¿ Furthermore, it is my opinion that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the plaintiff’s difficulty swallowing was a normal occurrence following a tonsillectomy which would have resolved itself with time, and that the mucosal band to which she attributed this difficulty developed without Dr. Vanore as its cause, and could have been addressed by him in his office in the manner he proposed to the plaintiff. ¶ 30.
Based on the above evidence, which is offered in support of Vanore’s Separate Statement of Facts 3-28, Vanore has met his burden of demonstrated that Koshkaryan will be unable to establish the elements of breach of the standard of care or causation. Koshkaryan has not opposed this motion or offered any evidence to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of material fact.
Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Vanore and against Plaintiff Koshkaryan for all the reasons discussed above. Vanore is ordered to lodge with the Court and serve on all parties a proposed judgment within twenty days, and to provide notice of this order.