This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/28/2020 at 11:18:06 (UTC).

KARRY FORD-HELSETH VS COAST NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/14/2017 KARRY FORD-HELSETH filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against COAST NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GEORGINA T. RIZK, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3618

  • Filing Date:

    11/14/2017

  • 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 Judges

GEORGINA T. RIZK

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

FORD-HELSETH KARRY

Defendants and Respondents

COAST NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES

RAYHAUN ABRAHAM M.D.

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MILMAN JEFFREY A. ESQ.

MILMAN JEFFREY ALAN

MILMAN JEFFREY ALAN ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

AMES DENNIS K. ESQ.

AMES DENNIS K.

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO BRING A MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

2/24/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO BRING A MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS, FOR ...)

2/24/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS, FOR ...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS NOT TIMELY DESIGNATED UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034.010, ET SEQ .

3/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS NOT TIMELY DESIGNATED UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034.010, ET SEQ .

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO PERMIT PLAINTIFFS TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS' COVERAGE BY INTERINDEMNITY TRUST THROUGH COOPERATIVE AMERICAN

3/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #1 TO PERMIT PLAINTIFFS TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS' COVERAGE BY INTERINDEMNITY TRUST THROUGH COOPERATIVE AMERICAN

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 8

3/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 8

Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 7

3/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 7

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION

3/4/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT ORDER TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION [CCP 2034.610 AND 2034.720]

3/4/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR COURT ORDER TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS DESIGNATION [CCP 2034.610 AND 2034.720]

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #4 TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS NOT TIMELY DESIGNATED UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034.010 ET SEQ.

3/4/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #4 TO EXCLUDE EXPERTS NOT TIMELY DESIGNATED UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034.010 ET SEQ.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING THE 04/06/2020 HEARING ON MOTION FOR L...)

3/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER CONTINUING THE 04/06/2020 HEARING ON MOTION FOR L...)

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION

7/2/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

7/2/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

10/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

6/24/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OFF CALENDAR

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS SEPARATELY BOUND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

4/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANTS SEPARATELY BOUND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue FSC & Trial

2/13/2019: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Continue FSC & Trial

SUMMONS -

11/14/2017: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL NEGLICENCE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11/14/2017: COMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL NEGLICENCE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

44 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2021
  • Hearing05/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2021
  • Hearing04/29/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination with Orthopedic Surgeon, Robert Eastlack, M.D. (CCP Sections 2032.220, 2032.250 and 473), Filed by the Defendants) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Medical E...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Coast Neurosurgical Associates (Defendant); Abraham Rayhaun, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Independent Medical Examination); Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2020
  • DocketReply (Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel); Filed by Coast Neurosurgical Associates (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Hearing Date on Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Independent Medical Examination); Filed by Coast Neurosurgical Associates (Defendant); Abraham Rayhaun, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Coast Neurosurgical Associates (Defendant); Abraham Rayhaun, M.D. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
67 More Docket Entries
  • 03/15/2018
  • DocketDEFERDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL NEGLICENCE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683618    Hearing Date: November 10, 2020    Dept: 29

Ford-Helseth v. Coast Neurosurgical Associates et al. BC683618

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Independent Medical Examination with Orthopedic Surgeon Robert Eastlack M.D. is GRANTED. (Code Civil Procedure §§ 2032.220, 2032.250). Plaintiff is ordered to appear for the examination at a mutually convenient date and time as noticed by Defendant.

Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to appear for a physical examination with Robert Eastlack, M.D. Defendant had previously noticed the examination and Plaintiff appeared for the examination, but due to an error in Defendant’s office, Dr. Eastlack was unavailable. While the court is disturbed by the lack of care taken by Defendant’s office in connection with the scheduling of this examination, the court finds that the scheduling error was the result of excusable neglect. Given the importance of the examination to the defense of the case, the court orders Plaintiff to appear for the examination.

Defendant is ordered to reimburse Plaintiff for travel costs for Plaintiff’s travel on the initial date and the upcoming one.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC683618    Hearing Date: July 10, 2020    Dept: 29

Ford-Helseth v. Coast Neurological Associates, et al.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave of Court to Allow Defendants to Augment Expert Witness Designation is GRANTED.

On 12/30/19 Defendant served a new demand for expert witness information based on the continued trial date. The new date for the exchange was 1/27/20. Defendant’s supplemental designation was due 20 days after the exchange, which was 2/16/20. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 2034.280. Therefore, the 2/24/20 supplemental was untimely served.

A party who has timely participated in the initial exchange of expert information can move to augment that list to include a subsequently retained expert. Cal Code Civ Procedure §2034.610(a).

In determining whether to grant a party leave to augment an expert witness list, the Court takes into account certain factors: the extent to which the opposing parties relied on the list of expert witnesses and after determining that the opposing parties will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. Cal Code Civ Procedure §2034.620.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she acted in reliance on Defendants’ initial designation in a manner that has resulted in prejudice. The trial date has since been vacated and expert depositions have not gone forward. Reply 2:18-21.

To grant the requested relief, the Court must find that Defendants would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert or the failure to call that expert was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Here, Defendants argue the supplemental designation was untimely due to inadvertence and mistake. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2034.620(c).

Here, the inadvertence was reasonable given that in the middle of the original expert exchange process, the trial date was continued, and Defendants served a new demand for expert exchange based on the new trial date. Declaration of Michael Reid, paragraph 5, Exhibit 2. Plaintiff did not re-submit her designation based on the continued trial date, nor did she object, resulting in a tardy supplemental designation. Id. paragraph 6. Ultimately, given that the trial date has been vacated, the parties have time to complete expert discovery.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

NOTE:  All Counsel must make an appearance as a Trial Setting Conference is also set for this date.