This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 08:08:50 (UTC).

DENISE REKAPALLI VS MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN DDS ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/05/2017 DENISE REKAPALLI filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN 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 STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8054

  • Filing Date:

    10/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

REKAPALLI DENISE

Defendants

SHNORHAVORIAN MISAK DDS

WALNUT HILL DENTAL

TSIBEL ARKADY D.D.S.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GOLDBERG STEVEN P. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

PETERSON GEORGE E. ESQ.

KAMEL BRIAN P. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

10/5/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

SUMMONS

10/5/2017: SUMMONS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/2/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE (SUNNONS) WALNUT HILL DENTAL

11/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE (SUNNONS) WALNUT HILL DENTAL

PROOF OF SERVICE (SUMMONS) MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S.

11/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE (SUMMONS) MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S.

PROOF OF SERVICE(SUMMONS) ARKADY TSIEEL, D.D.S.

11/1/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE(SUMMONS) ARKADY TSIEEL, D.D.S.

Unknown

12/4/2017: Unknown

DEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COM PLAINT

12/4/2017: DEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COM PLAINT

DEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' NOTICE POSTING JURY FEES

12/4/2017: DEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' NOTICE POSTING JURY FEES

DEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/4/2017: DEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

2/25/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Answer

2/28/2018: Answer

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (-FSC:8-22-19 Trial:9-9-19); Filed by ARKADY D.D.S. TSIBEL (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ARKADY D.D.S. TSIBEL (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • DocketAnswer

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COM PLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketDEFENDANT MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S' DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by MISAK DDS SHNORHAVORIAN (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by MISAK DDS SHNORHAVORIAN (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 11/02/2017
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE(SUMMONS) ARKADY TSIEEL, D.D.S.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE (SUNNONS) WALNUT HILL DENTAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DENISE REKAPALLI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE (SUMMONS) MISAK SHNORHAVORIAN, D.D.S.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DENISE REKAPALLI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by DENISE REKAPALLI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by DENISE REKAPALLI (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8054    Hearing Date: June 23, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 32

denise rekapalli,

Plaintiff,

v.

misak shnorhavorian, d.d.s., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****8054

Hearing Date: June 23, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Plaintiff Denise Rekapalli (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Defendants Arkady Tsibel, D.D.S. (“Tsibel”) and Arkady S. Tsibel Dental Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) following a dental procedure in which Tsibel adjusted crowns in Plaintiff’s mouth. The crowns had been placed in Plaintiff’s mouth and initially adjusted by co-defendant Misak Shnorhavorian, D.D.S. (“Shnorhavorian”). Now, Defendants move for summary judgment, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is denied.

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.)  

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court overrules Defendants’ Objection #1. One paragraph of the declaration references treatment by “August de Oliveria, DDS.” (Declaration of Richard L. Kahn, ¶ 4.) Defendant objects to the declaration on this ground, but the objection is overruled because the remainder of the declaration, including the paragraphs detailing Kahn’s opinions, makes clear that he does so with respect to Tsibel. (Id., ¶¶ 6-16.) Therefore, it is clear that Paragraph #4 merely contains an error that does not undermine the relevant parts of the declaration. The Court overrules Objections #6, #7, #8, and #9. The Court need not rule on the remaining objections, per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(q).

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a claim for medical or dental malpractice, 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 rely on a declaration from Tsibel, who may provide an expert declaration in support of Defendants’ motion. (See O'Connor v. Bloomer (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 385.) Tsibel states that he provided “limited care” to Plaintiff, which “solely involved adjustments to crowns that were placed by [Shnorhavorian].” (Declaration of Arkady Tsibel, D.D.S., ¶ 2.) Defendants also rely on a declaration from Mark Exler, D.D.S. (“Exler”), a dentist specializing in the use of crowns. Exler opines that Tsibel’s treatment of Plaintiff satisfied the standard of care. (Declaration of Mark Exler, D.D.S., ¶ 12.) Further, Exler opines that Tsibel’s treatment of Plaintiff did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id., ¶ 15.) Defendants’ evidence satisfies their burden on summary judgment, shifting the burden to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff relies on the declaration of Richard L. Kahn, D.D.S. (“Kahn”), a dentist who specializes in restorative dentistry. Kahn opines that Tsibel breached the standard of care by failing to do a thorough and complete examination of Plaintiff. (Declaration of Richard L. Kahn, D.D.S., ¶¶ 9, 10.) Kahn opines that Tsibel failed to do the following:

- “He failed to review an updated health history.”

- “He failed to do a periodontal probing and exam.”

- “He failed to review recent x-rays or take new x-rays as needed in the areas [Plaintiff] was having pain.”

- “Dr. Tsibel failed to review notes of recent treatment done by Dr. Snorhavorian.”

- “Dr. Tsibel failed to properly test teeth #2, #30 and #31 for pulpal health.”

- “Dr. Tsibel did not examine teeth clinically or radiographically for defective restorations.”

- “Dr. Tsibel failed to note tissue inflammation between teeth #18 and #19.”

(Id., ¶ 10(a)-(g).) Kahn opines that by not evaluating Plaintiff thoroughly, he breached the standard of care “and resulted in her need to undergo extensive treatment.” (Id., ¶ 12.) Kahn opines that these breaches resulted in “continuing pain and discomfort.” (Id., ¶ 13.) This is sufficient to give rise to a triable issue.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: June 23, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****8054    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

denise rekapalli,

Plaintiff,

v.

misak shnorhavorian, d.d.s., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: ****8054

Hearing Date: January 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to Continue Trial Date

On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff Denise Rekapalli (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Misak Shnorhavorian, D.D.S. (“Dr. Shnorhavorian”), Walnut Hill Dental, and Arkady Tsibel, D.D.S. (“Dr. Tsibel”). Plaintiff and Dr. Shnorhavorian (“Moving Parties”) jointly move to continue trial from January 15, 2020 to April 28, 2020, in order to allow the parties to complete discovery. Specifically, the Moving Parties represent that they must take depositions of Dr. Tsibel and Dr. Shnorhavorian, as well as six retained expert witnesses.

The Court finds good cause for the discovery not having been completed. The Moving Parties represent that discovery was postponed pending mediation “in order to avoid spending significant funds and calendar hours on discovery should the case resolve at mediation.” (Declaration of Bryan Su, ¶ 2.) Dr. Tsibel’s counsel proposed mediation but then appeared one hour late without authority to proceed. (Id., ¶ 4.) Dr. Tsibel does not dispute these facts. To the contrary, Dr. Tsibel admits that “the Tsibel Defendants withdrew their consent to settle on the eve of the mediation because of their peripheral involvement in the matter . . . .” (Declaration of Brian P. Kamel, ¶ 7.) The Court is concerned that Dr. Tsibel would agree to a mediation and then withdraw consent “on the eve of the mediation” after it had been arranged.

Moreover, Dr. Tsibel admits that his deposition did not go forward on December 19, 2019, due to his own error, having “miscalendared the deposition.” Although Dr. Tsibel proposed alternative dates of December 23, 2019 (when Plaintiff’s counsel was out-of-town for the holidays) and January 6, 2020 (only nine days before trial), this does not excuse Dr. Tsibel’s error. The Court is concerned that Dr. Tsibel did not make himself available for a deposition as noticed.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial, discovery not having been completed. Although Dr. Tsibel argues that the parties conducted no discovery between the mediation on October 14, 2019, and November 25, 2019, this relatively short delay is understandable given the procedural history of the case. The Court has considered the potential prejudice to Dr. Tsibel but does not believe that any prejudice is significant enough to deny this motion.

Dr. Tsibel argues: “On November 25, 2019, Dr. Shnorhavorian attempted to continue the trial, over the Tsibel Defendants’ objections, via ex parte application. The Court denied the ex parte application.” The Court denied the application only because there was sufficient time to file a noticed motion, which the Moving Parties have done. The Court’s ruling was not on the merits.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants the Moving Party’s motion to continue the trial and all related dates. The final status conference and trial dates are advanced and vacated. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: April 15, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: April 29, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the new trial date. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KAMEL BRIAN PATRICK

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GEORGE E. PETERSON