On 11/17/2017 ALLISON STEIN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against DAVID GHOZLAND. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NANCY L. NEWMAN
DAVID GHOZLAND MD INC
DOES 1 TO 25
GHOZLAND M.D. DAVID
DAVID GHOZLAND M.D. INC.
GHOZLAND DAVID; M.D.
BARRETT JOE ESQ.
BARRETT JOSEPH M.
MCMILLAN WILLIAM NEAL
OZERAN DAVID J.
TOMLINSON JANET M.
LA FOLLETTE JOHNSON DEHAAS FESLER & AMES
WEND CHRISTOPHER P.
LA FOLLETTE JOHNSON DE HAAS FESLER ETC
10/15/2019: Motion re: - MOTION RE: MOTION TO ADVANCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATE
11/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (DEFENDANTS DAVID GHOZLAND, M.D. AND DAVID GHOZLAND, M.D., INC...)
12/27/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF EMILY SIKKING
12/27/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment
2/26/2020: Separate Statement
2/28/2020: Case Management Statement
3/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFE...)
8/6/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC, AND ALL RELATED DATES
2/9/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO WEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (SANTA MONICA)
2/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
4/30/2018: NOTICE OF TRANSFER
7/27/2018: Case Management Statement -
9/12/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees -
9/13/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees -
11/28/2018: Case Management Statement - Case Management Statement 12-11-18 8:30 am Dept P
12/11/2018: Other - - Other - Stipulation and Order Striking Claim for Punitive and Exemplary Damages from Second Amended Complaint;
12/11/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore Kristin Cyphers CSR#13518
12/11/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Defendants David Ghozland and David Ghozland M.D., Inc.'s Dem...)
Hearing07/26/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing07/16/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (to Continue Trial, FSC, and All Related Dates); Filed by David; M.D. Ghozland (Defendant); David Ghozland, M.D., Inc. (Defendant); DAVID GHOZLAND (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Jury Trial (with a 10 days time estimtae) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by David; M.D. Ghozland (Defendant); David Ghozland, M.D., Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue trial date) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to continue trial date)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO WEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (SANTA MONICA)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Transfer; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO WEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (SANTA MONICA)Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 2. BATTERY 3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. INTENTIONAL MISREPRENTATION (FRAUD) JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by ALLISON STEIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 2. BATTERY 3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC683817 Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Dept: P
Allison Stein v. David Ghozland, et al. Case No. BC683817
Hearing Date: March 11, 2020
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication
Plaintiff Stein had a labiaplasty surgery performed by defendant David Ghozland, M.D.; plaintiff alleges defendant removed more tissue than was consented to, resulting in trauma, physical pain and incontinence. Defendants move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to the causes of action for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.
All objections to defense expert Emily Sikking, M.D. declaration are OVERRULED.
The elements of a cause of action for medical malpractice are (1) the duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of the medical profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. E.g. Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606. Expert testimony is required to prove breach of the standard of care. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399.
Defendants argues Ghozland complied with the standard of care when performing surgery, did not mislead plaintiff, did not exceed the scope of consent and did not cause plaintiff’s injuries, supported by the expert declaration of Emily Sikking, M.D. and depositions of plaintiff’s treating doctors. Defendants’ Separate Statement (DSS) at ¶¶22-29. This is sufficient to carry defendants’ initial burden, which thereafter shifts to Stein to show a triable issue of material fact as to standard of care and causation.
Plaintiff presents contrary expert testimony from Marki Knox, M.D., who opines, based on physical examination and review of medical records, that defendant did not meet the standard of care, failed to obtain informed consent and performed surgery that exceeded the scope of Stein’s consent. Plaintiff’s Response to Separate Statement (PRSS) ¶¶22-29. This is sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact as to these elements. Motion for summary judgment DENIED.
Summary Adjudication – Battery
Medical battery occurs when a patient has consented to a particular treatment, but the doctor performs a treatment that goes beyond the consent. Conte v. Girard Orthopaedic Surgeons Medical Group, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268.
Dr. Sikking states she saw no evidence of “mutilation” when reviewing plaintiff’s medical records and opines the labiaplasty was within the scope of plaintiff’s consent. Defendants’ Separate Statement 21, 22, 24. Defendants also argue there is no evidence of an intent to harm. An intent to harm is not an element of medical battery. See, Conte. Plaintiff provides contrary evidence from Dr. Knox, who states “[i]t is clear to me that Ms. Stein did not get what she and Dr. Ghozland agreed to. Instead, it appears that Dr. Ghozland disregarded Ms. Stein’s wishes . . . .” Knox Decl. at ¶25. This creates a triable issue of fact as to battery.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard to the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) plaintiff’s extreme emotional distress, and (3) causation. Cochran v. Cochran (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 488, 494.
Defendants argues Ghozland’s conduct was not extreme and outrageous (since he performed the surgery correctly), and he did not intend to cause plaintiff emotional distress. As explained above, the Knox declaration provides evidence the surgery exceeded the scope of the consent. This conduct could be considered “extreme and outrageous” by a reasonable jury. Additionally, while plaintiff has not shown Ghozland had the intent to cause emotional distress, she presents evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude, by exceeding the scope of Stein’s consent, Ghozland acted with a “reckless disregard” to the probability of causing distress.
The elements of fraud are (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to defraud, (4) justifiable reliance and (5) damage. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.
Defendants argue plaintiff cannot establish false representations or knowledge of falsity. Plaintiff’s opposition does not directly address defendant’s arguments regarding the fraud claim. The court interprets this silence as agreement summary adjudication is proper.
Summary judgment DENIED. Summary adjudication GRANTED as to the fraud cause of action only and DENIED as to all other causes of action.