This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 01:40:58 (UTC).

ESTATE OF MARY L COLE ET AL VS ARMEN HOVHANNISYAN MD GROUP

Case Summary

On 01/25/2018 ESTATE OF MARY L COLE filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against ARMEN HOVHANNISYAN MD GROUP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1703

  • Filing Date:

    01/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ESTATE OF MARY L. COLE

COLE AMER

Respondents and Defendants

SHORR ROBERT M. MD

HOVHANNISYAN ARMEN M.D. GROUP INC

SHORR ROBERT MICHAEL

AMBARTSUMYAN ARTHUR P.A.

AMBARTSUMYAN ARTUR P.A.

HOVHANNISYAN ARMEN M.D.

AMBARTSUMYAN ARTUR

PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC.

CENTINELA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER

TUNG M.D. JAGDEEP S.

PRIME HEALTHCARE CENTINELA LLC

TUNG M.D. JAGDEEP SINGH

DOES 1-100

SHORR M.D. ROBERT M.

HOVHANNISYAN ARMEN ALIAS YUK LAW

ROBINSON DOE 1 TONY LAVELL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

AKUBUILO JUDE A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

PEABODY THOMAS M

BRANDMEYER KENT T.

BLESSEY RAYMOND LESLIE

BUTTS MELANIE

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

2/7/2018: SUMMONS

Demand for Jury Trial

12/5/2018: Demand for Jury Trial

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

12/5/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Complaint

12/21/2018: Complaint

Summons

12/21/2018: Summons

Answer

1/22/2019: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

1/22/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

1/28/2019: Answer

Demand for Jury Trial

2/7/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Answer

2/7/2019: Answer

Stipulation and Order

2/14/2019: Stipulation and Order

Declaration re: Due Diligence

2/25/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/25/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Demand for Jury Trial

3/19/2019: Demand for Jury Trial

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Personal Service

5/20/2019: Proof of Personal Service

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

1/25/2018: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/NEGLIGENCE; ETC

1/25/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/NEGLIGENCE; ETC

9 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/28/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Robert M. Shorr, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Amer Cole (Plaintiff); Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Amer Cole (Plaintiff); Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Answer (TO PLAINTIFFS? FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by Artur Ambartsumyan (Defendant); Hovhannisyan, Armen, M.D. Group, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Artur Ambartsumyan (Defendant); Hovhannisyan, Armen, M.D. Group, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Amer Cole (Plaintiff); Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation Re: Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; [Proposed] Order); Filed by Erroneously named and served as Centinela Hospital Medical Center Erroneously Sued As Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Armen, M.D. Hovhannisyan (Defendant); Armen Hovhannisyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Armen, M.D. Hovhannisyan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 01/10/2019
  • Answer; Filed by M.D., Jagdeep Singh Tung (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Amer Cole (Plaintiff); Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Summons (on Amended Complaint (1st)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by M.D., Jagdeep Singh Tung (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by M.D., Jagdeep Singh Tung (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Amer Cole (Plaintiff); Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Amer Cole (Plaintiff); Estate of Mary L. Cole (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/NEGLIGENCE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC691703    Hearing Date: November 30, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, November 30, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 10

PROCEEDINGS

Estate of Mary L. Cole, et al. v. Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D., et al.

BC691703

  1. Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is granted.

Objections

The Court makes the following ruling to Defendants’ objections.

As to objections 1 to 4 to Defendants’ objections to the declarations of Jude Akubuilo, Defendants’ objections are sustained.

As to objections 1 to 28 to Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Jace W. Hyder, Defendants’ objections are overruled.

As to objections 1 to 6 to Defendants’ objections to the deposition testimony of Maetta Cole, Defendants’ objections are sustained.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

Motion for Summary Judgment

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A. moves for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the first cause of action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure§ 437c, on the grounds that no triable issue exists as to any material fact, and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as to the First Amended Complaint or adjudication of the first cause of action. The motion is made on the grounds that Defendant acted within the standard of care in the care and treatment of decedent Mary L. Cole, and that nothing Defendant did or did not do caused or contributed to decedent’s death or Plaintiffs’ damages.

Defendant has met his initial burden to show that Plaintiffs’ cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more element of the causes of action cannot be established. (Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 1-26.) Plaintiffs have not met their burden to provide specific facts to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to their cause of action. CCP § 437c(p)(2).

The standard of care with respect to acts of medical professionals is exclusively within the knowledge of experts, and, thus, whether the medical professional met or breached the standard of care can only be established by expert testimony. See, Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. Here, Defendant submitted the expert testimony of Marc Gutin, M.D. Dr. Gutin opines that Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care. Dr. Gutin also states that no act or omission of Defendant caused or contributed to decedent’s injuries and death. Dr. Gutin states that all Defendants, including Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A. properly evaluated decedent’s complaints of abdominal pain, determined that her condition was stable, and provided her with appropriate pain medication. Dr. Gutin states that all Defendants properly referred decedent back to the general surgeon after decedent’s complaints of pain and acted diligently in obtaining additional general surgery consults that provided decedent with multiple opinions. (Declaration, Marc Gutin, M.D., ¶¶ 37-42.)

Plaintiffs have not met their burden to provide expert testimony to controvert the opinions of Defendant’s expert. (See, Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406, 412.) Jace W. Hyder, M.D. opines that Defendant Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. failed to comply with the applicable standard of care and that Defendant Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D.’s breach of the standard of care was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to decedent’s death. (Decl., Jace W. Hyder, M.D., ¶¶ 9, 23-32.) Specifically, Dr. Hyder opines that Defendant Hovhannisyan, M.D. failed to recognize and treat decedent’s narcotic bowel syndrome, failed to define and evaluate decedent’s chronic pain problems, improperly prescribed multiple addictive medications without proper documentation of a narcotic medication contract, performed inadequate documentation of office visits, failed to adequately evaluate the colon in preparation for colostomy reversal, and failed to provide colon screening for cancer, including a digital rectal examination. Dr. Hyder opined that these failures were a breach of the standard of care and the cause of decedent’s injuries. (Decl., Jace W. Hyder, M.D., ¶¶ 29-32.)

The Court notes, however, that Dr. Hyder’s declaration is silent as to any acts or omissions on the part of Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A., that would constitute a breach of the standard of care and/or acts or omissions that caused or contributed to decedent’s injuries and demise. All of the facts set forth in Dr. Hyder’s declaration were only applicable to Dr. Hovhannisyan. Therefore, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the claims asserted against moving Defendant, Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC691703    Hearing Date: August 31, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, August 31, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 9

PROCEEDINGS

Estate of Mary L. Cole, et al. v. Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D., et al.

BC691703

  1. Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

  2. Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. and Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING

Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.

Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is continued.

As to Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A., in the opposition, Plaintiffs made a specific request for a denial of this motion because Plaintiffs have not been able to take this party’s deposition. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(h) states: “If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.”

Thus, rather than an outright denial of the motion, the facts noted above are sufficient to warrant the granting of a continuance to allow Plaintiffs to attempt to obtain the deposition of Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.

Defendant’s motion is continued to November 2, 2020.

Any supplemental opposition as to Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A. is to be filed and served by October 19, 2020.

Any supplemental reply is to be filed and served by October 28, 2020.

Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. and Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc.

Objections

The Court makes the following ruling to Defendants’ objections.

As to objections 1 to 4 to Defendants’ objections to the declarations of Jude Akubuilo, Defendants’ objections are sustained.

As to objections 1 to 28 to Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Jace W. Hyder, Defendants’ objections are overruled.

As to objections 1 to 6 to Defendants’ objections to the deposition testimony of Maetta Cole, Defendants’ objections are sustained.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

Motion for Summary Judgment

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP § 437c(p)(2). “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

Defendants Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D and Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc. move for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the first cause of action, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure§ 437c, on the grounds that no triable issue exists as to any material fact, and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as to the First Amended Complaint or adjudication of the first cause of action. The motion is made on the grounds that Defendants acted within the standard of care in the care and treatment of decedent Mary L. Cole, and that nothing Defendants did or did not do caused or contributed to decedent’s death or Plaintiffs’ damages.

Defendants have met their initial burden to show that Plaintiffs’ cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more element of the causes of action cannot be established. (Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 4-17, 19-22, 24-25, 27, 30-36.) However, Plaintiffs have met their burden to provide specific facts to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to their cause of action. (Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 30-36.)

The standard of care with respect to acts of medical professionals is exclusively within the knowledge of experts, and, thus, whether the medical professional met or breached the standard of care can only be established by expert testimony. See, Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. Here, Defendants submitted the expert testimony of Marc Gutin, M.D. Dr. Gutin opines that Defendants complied with the applicable standard of care. Dr. Gutin also states that no act or omission of Defendants caused or contributed to decedent’s injuries and death. Dr. Gutin states that Defendants properly evaluated decedent’s complaints of abdominal pain, determined that her condition was stable, and provided her with appropriate pain medication. Dr. Gutin states that Defendants properly referred decedent back to the general surgeon after decedent’s complaints of pain and acted diligently in obtaining additional general surgery consults that provided decedent with multiple opinions. (Declaration, Marc Gutin, M.D., ¶¶ 37-42.)

Plaintiffs have met their burden to provide expert testimony to controvert the opinions of Defendants’ expert. See, Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406, 412. Jace W. Hyder, M.D. opines that Defendants failed to comply with the applicable standard of care and that Defendants’ breach of the standard of care was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to decedent’s death. (Declaration, Jace W. Hyder, M.D., ¶¶ 9, 23-32.) Specifically, Dr. Hyder opines that Defendants failed to recognize and treat decedent’s narcotic bowel syndrome, failed to define and evaluate decedent’s chronic pain problems, improperly prescribed multiple addictive medications without proper documentation of a narcotic medication contract, performed inadequate documentation of office visits, failed to adequately evaluate the colon in preparation for colostomy reversal, and failed to provide colon screening for cancer, including a digital rectal examination. Dr. Hyder opined that these failures were a breach of the standard of care and the cause of decedent’s injuries. (Decl., Jace W. Hyder, M.D., ¶¶ 29-32.)

In the Reply, Defendants present three primary arguments. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s theory of liability against Defendants is outside the scope of the pleadings. See, Conroy v. Regs. of Univ. of Calif. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1253-54. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ FAC did not make any allegation as to any complaint with the manner in which Defendants assessed and managed decedent’s medication. However, the FAC did, in fact, place into issue Defendants’ care and treatment related to decedent’s pain medication. (FAC, 16, 20, 27.) Plaintiffs’ properly placed into issue Defendants’ alleged failure to properly monitor and ensure adequate pain management and the appropriate pain medication.

Second, Defendants argue that Dr. Hyder is not qualified to testify as to the standard of care. Defendants contend that Dr. Hyder is a colon and rectal surgeon, and, therefore, lacks the necessary qualification to opine as to the medical issues with respect to the standard of care for a primary care physician or internist such as Dr. Hovhannisyan. However, Dr. Hyder has adequately set forth his qualifications to testify as to the issues involved in this action. Specifically, Dr. Hyder is board certified in colon and rectal surgery and has shown that he is qualified to testify as to the standard of care with respect to the specific matters to which he criticizes defendants herein: pain management and risk factors related to opioid prescriptions. (Decl., Hyder, ¶¶ 3-4.) Dr. Hyder, therefore, has adequately established his qualification to testify as an expert witness in this matter.

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to provide to the Court all the evidence relied upon by Dr. Hyder in forming his opinions as required under Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 735, 743. Pursuant to Garibay, in a medical malpractice action the materials relied upon by the expert in forming his or her opinions must be presented to the Court otherwise the expert’s statements constitute hearsay. However, the party need not provide duplicate copies of such evidence if the other party had already submitted that evidence. Here, the following evidence, which was noted by Plaintiffs’ expert as materials that he relied upon, was not submitted by either the moving party or opposing party: (1) pharmacy records of Mary L. Cole; (2) medical records of Robert Schorr, M.D. However, the Court notes that the medical records of Robert Schorr, M.D. were already lodged with the Court by that party and it does not appear that the pharmacy records were specifically referred to by Plaintiffs’ expert in the formulation of his opinions. Thus, Dr. Hyder’s opinions did not constitute hearsay because the actual materials that were specifically relied upon and referred to by Dr. Hyder were presented to the Court. In this manner, the instant action is distinguishable from Garibay. In Garibay, the specific documents relied upon by the expert – the medical records – were not presented to the Court. Therefore, the expert’s opinions constituted hearsay. Additionally, the Court notes that on August 19, 2020 Plaintiffs lodged with the Court the pharmacy records and Dr. Schorr’s medical records.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication is denied.

Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC and Robert M. Schorr, M.D.

Lastly, as to Defendants Prime Healthcare Centinela, dba Centinela Hospital Medical Center (“Prime Healthcare”) and Robert M. Schorr, M.D. (“Dr. Schorr”), each Defendant filed a Notice of Partial Settlement and Application for Good Faith Settlement pursuant to CCP § 877.6(a)(2). The Court has reviewed the Applications and supporting evidence therewith.

As to Defendant Prime Healthcare, the Court received no noticed motion contesting the good faith settlement within the statutory period allotted under CCP § 877.6(a)(2). Accordingly, Prime Healthcare’s Application is approved, and Plaintiffs are directed to file the requisite partial Request for Dismissal.

With respect to Dr. Schorr, his Application was served by mail on August 17, 2020. Thus, the contested period has yet to expire. Absent such a challenge, Dr. Schorr’s Application is conditionally approved effective October 14, 2020, with the requisite partial Request for Dismissal to be filed within 3 days thereafter.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: BC691703    Hearing Date: August 17, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Monday, August 17, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 7

PROCEEDINGS

Estate of Mary L. Cole, et al. v. Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D., et al.

BC691703

  1. Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

  2. Robert Schorr, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

  3. Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

  4. Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. and Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

  5. Jadeep Singh Tung, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication are either off calendar or continued.

Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication has already been taken off calendar by this moving party.

Jadeep Singh Tung, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is hereby taken off calendar by the Court as a dismissal of this Defendant has been entered.

Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A., Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D., Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc., and Robert Schorr, M.D.’s Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication are continued.

As to Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A., in the opposition, Plaintiffs made a specific request for a denial of this motion because Plaintiffs have not been able to take this party’s deposition. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(h) states: “If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.”

Thus, rather than an outright denial of the motion, the facts noted above are sufficient to warrant the granting of a continuance to allow Plaintiffs to attempt to obtain the deposition of Defendant Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A.

Second, as to Defendant Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D and Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc., a continuance is ordered so that Plaintiffs can submit to the Court all the purported evidence that Plaintiffs’ expert relied upon in forming his opinions as required under Garibay v. Hemmat (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 735, 743. Pursuant to Garibay, in a medical malpractice action all the materials relied upon by the expert in forming his or her opinions must be presented to the Court otherwise the expert’s statements constitute hearsay. However, the party need not provide duplicate copies of such evidence if the other party had already submitted that evidence. Here, the following evidence, which was noted by Plaintiffs’ expert as materials that he relied upon, was not submitted by either the moving party or opposing party: (1) pharmacy records of Mary L. Cole; (2) medical records of Robert Schorr, M.D. The Court notes that the medical records of Robert Schorr, M.D. were already lodged with the Court by that party and it does not appear that the pharmacy records were specifically referred to by Plaintiffs’ expert in the formulation of his opinions. A continuance would allow all this evidence to be properly before this Court.

Finally, as to Defendant Robert M. Schorr, M.D., it appears that the parties have entered into a settlement. As of this date, however, no request for dismissal has been entered as to this Defendant. Thus, the motion is continued so that Plaintiffs can file the Request for Dismissal.

Defendants’ motions are continued to November 2, 2020. Plaintiffs are to file a Request for Dismissal as to Defendant Robert M. Schorr, M.D., forthwith.

Any supplemental oppositions as to Artur Ambartsumyan, P.A., Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D., and Armen Hovhannisyan, M.D. Group, Inc are to be filed and served by October 19, 2020. Any supplemental relies are to be filed and served by October 28, 2020.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PRIME HEALTHCARE CENTINELA LLC DBA CENTINELA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases where CENTINELA HOSPITALIST MEDICAL DBA CENTINELA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER is a litigant

Latest cases where PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUTTS MELANIE COLLETTE