Case Number: BC625389 Hearing Date: May 24, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Spring Street Courthouse, Department 5

yolanda splopuk,

Plaintiff,

v.

dr. hessam aazami, m.d., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC625389

Hearing Date: May 24, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiff Yolanda Splopuk (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dr. Hessam Aazami, M.D. (“Dr. Aazami”) and 101 Family Medical Group (“101 Family,” collectively, “Defendants”) for medical malpractice. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Aazami failed to timely diagnose her cancer. Dr. Aazami treated Plaintiff at 101 Family, and Plaintiff contends 101 Family is liable for Dr. Aazami’s negligence. Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint for medical malpractice. The unopposed motion is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law . . . . There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.) In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff’s evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.” (Id. at 856.) However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.” (Ibid., emphasis original.)

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a claim for professional negligence against a medical professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a medical professional had a duty to use the skill, prudence and diligence that members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) an injury that resulted from the breach of that duty; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the breach of that duty. (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612.) Expert testimony is the only admissible evidence on breach of the standard of care. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

Defendants relies on the declaration of Mark R. Needham, M.D. (“Dr. Needham”), who is a family medicine specialist. Dr. Needham reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records, as well as transcripts of the deposition testimony of Plaintiff and Dr. Aazami. Dr. Needham opines that Defendants’ care and treatment of Plaintiff satisfied the applicable standard of care at all times. (Declaration of Mark R. Needham, M.D., ¶ 8.) Defendants also rely on the declaration of Michael B. Van Scoy-Mosher, M.D. (“Dr. Van Scoy-Mosher”), who is an oncologist. Dr. Van Scoy-Mosher states that, regardless of any delay in the diagnosis of Plaintiff’s cancer, Plaintiff would have undergone the treatment she received, and would have the same prognosis. (Declaration of Michael B. Van Scoy-Mosher, ¶ 12.) This evidence is sufficient to satisfy Defendants’ burden of production of evidence to show that Plaintiff cannot establish that Dr. Aazami breached the standard of care with respect to Plaintiff’s treatment, and cannot establish that any delay in diagnosis caused or exacerbated Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants have shifted the burden to Plaintiff to raise triable issues of material fact. As Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, Plaintiff cannot meet that burden. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants shall give notice, and file proof of service of such.

DATED: May 24, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court