Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/19/2019 at 00:23:57 (UTC).

ARSHIA HELMI VS NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/11/2017 ARSHIA HELMI filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8899

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HELMI ARSHIA

Defendants and Respondents

SADDAD NARIMAN

NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

RIVERA SETH M.D.

DOES 1 TO 100

DAVIES DANTAE M.D.

NASSERI HAMID M.D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BUNCH BRUCE M. ESQ.

BUNCH BRUCE MONROE ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

LYNCH GREGORY G

PACKER ROBERT BRUCE

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

10/11/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DANAGES FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

10/11/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DANAGES FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by HAMID, M.D. NASSERI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Answer; Filed by HAMID, M.D. NASSERI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Answer; Filed by NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by NARIMAN SADDAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Notice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by NARIMAN SADDAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Answer; Filed by NARIMAN SADDAD (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by ARSHIA HELMI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DANAGES FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC678899    Hearing Date: November 16, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 11-16-20 c/f 7-8-20 c/f 3-4-20

Case #BC678899

Calendar # 7

Trial Date: Not Set (previously set for 7-2-20)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Hamid Nasseri, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Arshia Helmi

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for medical malpractice. On March 3, 2020, the action was transferred from the Personal Injury court to Department 49.

RULING: Moot/Off-Calendar

Plaintiff dismissed moving Defendant Hamid Nasseri, D.O. with prejudice on October 23, 2020. The motion is therefore moot, and the court takes the motion off-calendar.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice to all parties.

Case Number: BC678899    Hearing Date: November 05, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 11-5-20 c/f 8-28-20 c/f 5-29-20

Case #BC678899

Calendar # 7

Trial Date: Not Set (previously set for 7-2-20)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Dantae Davies, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Arshia Helmi

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for medical malpractice. On March 3, 2020, the action was transferred from the Personal Injury court to Department 49.

RULING: Moot/Off-Calendar

Plaintiff dismissed moving Defendant Dantae Davies, M.D. with prejudice on October 30, 2020. The motion is therefore moot, and the court takes the motion off-calendar.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice to all parties.

Case Number: BC678899    Hearing Date: October 02, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-2-20 c/f 7-9-20

Case #BC678899

Calendar # 3

Trial Date: Not Set (previously set for 7-2-20)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Nariman Saddad, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Arshia Helmi[1]

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for medical malpractice. On March 3, 2020, the action was transferred from the Personal Injury court to Department 49.

RULING: Granted.

Nariman Saddad, M.D. moves for summary judgment on grounds that the care and treatment provided met the standard of care, and that no act or omission by the staff caused or contributed to the injuries of Plaintiff.

The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. (Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s testimony. (Id.) If the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to a medical malpractice action, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded. (Id.)

Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons. (See Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App4th 836, 844.) “‘When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.’” (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

Defendant presents the expert declaration of Andrew Wachtel, M.D. in support of his motion for summary judgment. Dr. Wachtel sets forth his expert qualifications, indicates he has reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records, and concludes that the care and treatment of Dr. Saddad complied with the standard of care. Dr. Wachtel also determines that no act or omission of Defendant caused or contributed to the development of any injuries.

Plaintiff submits no opposition. The court finds Defendant shifted the burden on standard of care and causation, and that Plaintiff fails to raise any triable issues of material fact. The motion is therefore granted.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice to all parties.


[1]Notice of non-opposition filed by Plaintiff. The parties agreed that Plaintiff will allow entry of a motion for summary judgment in exchange for a waiver of costs and claim for malicious prosecution.

Case Number: BC678899    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-14-20 c/f 5-5-20

Case #BC678899

Calendar # 7

Trial Date: Not Set (previously set for 7-2-20)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Seth Rivera, M.D., Ph.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Arshia Helmi1

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint for medical malpractice. On March 3, 2020, the action was transferred from the Personal Injury court to Department 49.

RULING: Granted.

Seth Rivera, M.D., Ph.D. moves for summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses offers no evidence of negligence, that the care and treatment provided met the standard of care, and that no act or omission by the staff caused or contributed to the injuries of Plaintiff.

The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. (Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s testimony. (Id.) If the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to a medical malpractice action, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded. (Id.)

Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons. (See Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App4th 836, 844.) “‘When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.’” (Munro v. Regents of University of California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-985.)

Defendant presents the expert declaration of William Klein, M.D. in support of his motion for summary judgment. Dr. Klein sets forth his expert qualifications, indicates he has reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records, and concludes that the care and treatment of Dr. Rivera complied with the standard of care. Dr. Klein also determines that no act or omission of Defendant caused or contributed to the development of any injuries.

Plaintiff submits no opposition, including a counter declaration. The court finds Defendant shifted the burden on standard of care and causation, and that Plaintiff fails to raise any triable issues of material fact. The motion is therefore granted.

The motion to deem request for admissions admitted on September 28, 2020 is now moot, and therefore off-calendar.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice to all parties.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUNCH, BRUCE M