This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/09/2019 at 00:45:15 (UTC).

DALIUS KARUNA VS JULIE VALENTINE DDS ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/07/2017 DALIUS KARUNA filed an Other lawsuit against JULIE VALENTINE DDS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2730

  • Filing Date:

    11/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KARUNA DALIUS

Defendants and Respondents

YADEGAR JOSHUA DDS

DOES 1 TO 40

VALENTINE JULIE DDS

BEVERLY HILLS ENDODONTICS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MCCULLOCH ROBERT J.

MCCULLOCH ROBERT JOSEPH ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

FRASER STEPHEN C. ESQ.

KAMEL BRIAN P. ESQ.

FRASER STEPHEN CLARK ESQ.

NATHAN CASEY BENJAMIN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

8/28/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

1/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

1/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Other - - Defendant Julie Valentine, D.D.S.' Demand for Jury Trial

1/16/2018: Other - - Defendant Julie Valentine, D.D.S.' Demand for Jury Trial

Answer -

1/16/2018: Answer -

DECLARATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

2/2/2018: DECLARATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

2/2/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT

2/2/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEE DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

2/2/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LIV ,JOSIIUA YADEGAR, DOS

2/2/2018: DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL LIV ,JOSIIUA YADEGAR, DOS

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

4/3/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

SUMMONS -

11/7/2017: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DENTAL NEGLIGENCE

11/7/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DENTAL NEGLIGENCE

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/09/2020
  • Hearing11/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2019
  • Hearing11/07/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • Hearing10/23/2019 at 10:00 AM in Department 2 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by JOSHUA DDS YADEGAR (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by JULIE DDS VALENTINE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by JULIE DDS VALENTINE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketAnswer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by JULIE DDS VALENTINE (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by DALIUS KARUNA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DENTAL NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DALIUS KARUNA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2013
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by DALIUS KARUNA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC682730    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 29

Karuna v. Valentine et al.

Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Joshua Yadegar, D.D.S., is DENIED. Defendant has not established that he is entitled to judgment in his favor based on the material facts proffered, which remain in dispute. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 437c(p)(2).

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Joshua Yadegar, D.D.S negligently provided dental care, causing Plaintiff to suffer permanent nerve damage.

Dr. Yadegar moves for summary judgment, claiming that the undisputed evidence establishes that his treatment complied with the applicable standard of care and that no negligent act or omission by Dr. Yadegar caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

To make out a claim for professional negligence, a plaintiff must establish the following elements: “’(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a 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's negligence.'” Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 606–607.

The required standard of care owed by a medical or dental professional is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts. Hanson, 76 Cal. App. 4th at 606–607; Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal. App. 3d 406, 414. The element of causation must also be proven with expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402.

Here, Dr. Yadegar presented evidence sufficient to meet his initial burden that he complied with the applicable standard of care and that no negligent act or omission of Dr. Yadegar caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, Dr. Yadegar presented the declaration of Thomas Jovacich, D.M.D. Dr. Jovacich is a certified endodontic specialist. Dr. Jovacich reviewed the dental records and other relevant documents and opined that the decision to perform the October 19, 2016 surgery was appropriate, the preoperative diagnosis was appropriate, and the intraoperative surgery undertaken was appropriate and conformed to the standard of care. Dr. Jovacich also opined that the postoperative care conformed to the applicable standard of care and that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no act or omission by Dr. Yadegar caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries.

The burden thus shifted to Plaintiff to present controverting evidence. In opposition, Plaintiff presents the declaration of Barry Vilkin, D.M.D., M.Sc.D., a specialist in endodontics. Dr. Vilkin reviewed the records and x-rays of Dr. Joshua Yadegar and Dr. Julie Valentine regarding their care and treatment of Mr. Karuna. Dr. Vilkin opined that Dr. Yadegar’s care and treatment fell below the applicable standard of care because he failed to order a Cone Beam CT scan of the subject tooth. According to Dr. Vilkin, ‘[t]he Cone Beam CT would have provided the necessary information regarding whether the tooth was fractured and if the tooth was perforated” and would have provided the specific location of the perforation. This information was necessary to determine whether the apicoectomy that Plaintiff underwent was the proper course of treatment. It is Dr. Vilkin’s opinion, that absent a Cone Beam CT scan, the apicoectomy should not have been performed. He also opines that “[h]ad the Cone Beam CT scan been taken and the procedure not performed, any injury to the nerve currently being claimed by the Plaintiff in this case would have been avoided.”

Dr. Yadegar objects to Dr. Vilkin’s declaration as lacking in foundation and based on speculation. The objection is overruled. The opinions are sufficiently supported by reasoned explanation connecting the facts to the ultimate opinions. Fernandez v. Alexander (2019) 31 Cal. App. 5th 770, 781.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.