SASHA JARA ET AL VS GEORGE DELSHAD ET AL

Petition to Approve Minor’s Compromise of Pending Action

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2015, Plaintiffs Sasha Jara and Ryland Rivas, by and through his guardian ad litem, Sasha Jara, filed a complaint against Defendants George Delshad, M.D., Valley Presbyterian Hospital, and Meesook Kim, M.D. for fraud, battery, and medical malpractice.

On September 26, 2019, Petitioner Sasha Jara filed this petition to approve a compromise of disputed claim for minor Plaintiff Ryland Rivas.

On October 23, 2019, the Court continued the hearing on Petitioner Sasha Jara’s petition because item 13(a) was not completed and the Probate Department of the Superior Court needed time to review the petition pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 4.115, subdivision (c).

OSC re: Dismissal is set for February 4, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Petitioner Sasha Jara (“Petitioner”) requests that the Court grant the petition to approve a compromise of disputed claim for minor Plaintiff Ryland Rivas (“Claimant”).

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952(a), Petitioner and Claimant are required to attend the hearing on the petition.  However, the Court finds that Claimant’s attendance is not required due to Claimant’s age and the settlement amount. 

DISCUSSION

The Court finds the petition must be denied for two reasons.

First, item 13a. of the petition is not filled out.  Second, a special needs trust is not appropriate in this case pursuant to Probate Code section 3604, subdivision (b).

Probate Code section 3604, subdivision (b) states “[a] special needs trust may be established . . . only if the court determines all of the following: (1) That the minor or person with a disability has a disability that substantially impairs the individual’s ability to provide for the individual’s own care or custody and creates a substantial handicap.  (2) That the minor or person with a disability is likely to have special needs that will not be met without the trust.  (3) That money to be paid to the trust does not exceed the amount that appears reasonably necessary to meet the special needs of the minor or person with a disability.”

An August 28, 2019 report from James Kim, M.D. states Claimant was diagnosed to have cerebral palsy involving Claimant’s left side due to neonatal stroke, which has improved.  (Petition, p. 18.)  Dr. Kim also assessed that Claimant’s neurological examination was unremarkable except possible slight slowing in left hand coordination.  (Ibid.)  There was no need for neurological intervention.  (Ibid.)  Dr. Kim explained that the cerebral palsy is static and that he does not expect it to impair Claimant’s motor functions.  (Ibid.)  Dr. Kim also explained that there would be a possible seizure disorder and cognitive slowing, but only recommended continued speech therapy as needed and routine pediatric care.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds this doctor’s report does not show that Claimant has a disability that substantially impairs Claimant’s ability to provide for Claimant’s own care or custody and creates a substantial handicap.  Claimant appears to be doing better.  There is specter of a seizure disorder and cognitive slowing.  However, this fear was not expressed as if it is likely to occur.  Dr. Kim’s opinion that there is no need for neurological intervention or any other treatment besides speech therapy and routine pediatric care strongly suggests that Claimant does not have a disability and that, if Claimant does have a disability, it does not rise to the level of creating a substantial handicap.  As such, a special needs trust is an inappropriate means to disburse Claimant’s net settlement.

The petition filed on September 26, 2019 is DENIED, without prejudice to the submission of an amended petition in compliance with the above.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.