Case Number: BC675889 Hearing Date: May 10, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

SARKIS PAKROO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

abraham ebbie soroudi, m.d., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC675889

Hearing Date: May 10, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION BY DEFENDANT abraham ebbie soroudi, m.d.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Sarkis Pakroo and Aurora Pakroo (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Abraham Ebbie Soroudi, M.D. (“Defendant”), among others, asserting causes of action for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant failed to promptly diagnose a cancerous mass in Sarkis Pakroo’s brain, causing severe and permanent vision loss. Defendant now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of each cause of action. Defendant originally noticed the motion for hearing on March 20, 2019, but continued the hearing at the request of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to this motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party can show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.

To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Discussion

In a medical malpractice action, the elements are: “(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional negligence [Citations].” (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612.) Breach of the standard of care may only be proven by expert testimony. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.) A claim for loss of consortium is dependent on the existence of a legitimate cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse. (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927.)

Defendant proffers evidence establishing that he complied with the appropriate standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the alleged injuries in this case. Defendant proffers a declaration from Alfredo A. Sadun, M.D. (“Dr. Sadun”), a medical doctor who is board-certified in ophthalmology. (Sadun Decl. ¶¶ 1-3; Exh. #1.) Dr. Sadun opines that Defendant’s care was within the appropriate standard of care because the symptoms were not indicative of a neurological issue or brain tumor and were consistent with non-neurological issues. (Id., ¶ 8.) Dr. Sadun opines that Defendant and his staff complied with the applicable standard of care with respect to follow-up appointments in June and July of 2016. (Ibid.) Dr. Sadun further opines that Defendant did not cause or contribute to Sarkis Pakroo’s injury because the outcome would have been the same, even if Defendant had diagnosed Plaintiff three months earlier. (Id., ¶ 9.)

Defendant also proffers a declaration from John Glaspy, M.D. (“Dr. Glaspy”), a medical doctor who is board-certified in internal medicine, hematology, and medical oncology. (Declaration of Dr. Glaspy ¶¶1-2; Exhibit A.) Dr. Glaspy similarly opines that Defendant did not cause or contribute to Sarkis Pakroo’s injury because the alleged delay in this case is not so long that his cancer went from curable to incurable, or that his vision went from curable to incurable. (Glaspy Decl., ¶ 6.)

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant has satisfied his burden on summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed no opposition and proffers no evidence, notwithstanding that they received one continuance in order to develop the record. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: May 10, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court