This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/24/2022 at 12:52:48 (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, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE, MARK A. BORENSTEIN, SERENA R. MURILLO, MICHAEL E. WHITAKER, DANIEL M. CROWLEY, MARK E. WINDHAM and GEORGINA T. RIZK. 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

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

SERENA R. MURILLO

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

MARK E. WINDHAM

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FORD-HELSETH KARRY

Defendants

COAST NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES

RAYHAUN ABRAHAM M.D.

IVAR M. SZPER M.D. INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MILMAN JEFFREY A. ESQ.

MILMAN JEFFREY ALAN ESQ.

MILMAN JEFFREY ALAN

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

AMES DENNIS K. ESQ.

AMES DENNIS K.

 

Court Documents

Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

9/16/2022: Response - RESPONSE DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

Reply - DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO TRIAL BRIEF RE: DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR THE USE OF BAJI 6.03 IN LIEU OF CACI 506

9/16/2022: Reply - DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO TRIAL BRIEF RE: DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR THE USE OF BAJI 6.03 IN LIEU OF CACI 506

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

9/21/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

9/22/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF'S INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

3/28/2022: Notice - NOTICE PLAINTIFF'S INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/29/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice - NOTICE OF DE-DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS

4/6/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF DE-DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

4/7/2022: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Notice - PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

4/21/2022: Notice - PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY WITNESSES, EVIDENCE OR CONTENTIONS NOT DISCLOSED IN RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY WITNESSES, EVIDENCE OR CONTENTIONS NOT DISCLOSED IN RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE LIMITING EXPERT OPINIONS TO THOSE EXPRESSED AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITION

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE LIMITING EXPERT OPINIONS TO THOSE EXPRESSED AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 3333.2 OR CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 667.7

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO THE EFFECT OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 3333.2 OR CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 667.7

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL TEXTS WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATION

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MEDICAL TEXTS WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATION

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE PRECLUDING EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING REGARDING THEIR PERSONAL PRACTICE

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE PRECLUDING EXPERTS FROM TESTIFYING REGARDING THEIR PERSONAL PRACTICE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PRECONDITIONING JURORS DURING VOIR DIRE

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EVIDENCE OF OTHER LAWSUITS, SETTLEMENTS, AND CALIFORNIA MEDICAL BOARD RELATED MATTERS

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EVIDENCE OF OTHER LAWSUITS, SETTLEMENTS, AND CALIFORNIA MEDICAL BOARD RELATED MATTERS

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE RE: DAMAGES

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE RE: DAMAGES

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EVIDENCE OF MALPRACTICE INSURANCE OR SELF INSURANCE

6/23/2022: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 OF 9: MOTION IN LIMINE RE: EVIDENCE OF MALPRACTICE INSURANCE OR SELF INSURANCE

90 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/31/2023
  • Hearing01/31/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/13/2023
  • Hearing01/13/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/21/2022
  • Docketat 1:00 PM in Department 29, Mark E. Windham, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/21/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO TRIAL BRIEF RE: DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR THE USE OF BAJI 6.03 IN LIEU OF CACI 506; Filed by HOOSHANG PAK, M.D., INC. Erroneously Sued As Coast Neurosurgical Associates (Defendant); Abraham Rayhaun, M.D. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketResponse (DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTENT TO USE DEPOSITION EXCERPTS); Filed by HOOSHANG PAK, M.D., INC. Erroneously Sued As Coast Neurosurgical Associates (Defendant); Abraham Rayhaun, M.D. (Defendant); IVAR M. SZPER, M.D., INC., (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/14/2022
  • DocketWitness List; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/14/2022
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
126 More Docket Entries
  • 03/15/2018
  • DocketDEFERDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Karry Ford-Helseth (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/14/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR MEDICAL NEGLICENCE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****3618 Hearing Date: December 1, 2021 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Karry Ford-Helseth’s Motion to Bifurcate the Issue of Liability from the Issue of Damages at Trial is DENIED without prejudice

Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff raising this issue for the trial judge to consider, on its own motion, at the time that the judge rules upon motions in limine. The Court orders that the bifurcation briefing be included in the trial binders in Tab B along with any motions in limine filed in the case. The Court recognizes that CRC Rule 3.57(c) states, “A motion in limine may not be used for the purpose of seeking an order to try an issue before the trial of another issue or issues,” and thus this order should not be construed in a way that contradicts this rule. Plaintiff may direct the trial court to this order, which should not be construed to in any way bind the trial court in making a bifurcation decision on its own motion.

Plaintiff properly sought a bifurcation order in advance of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., ; 598 (court to issue order bifurcating case on noticed motion by the pretrial conference or, absent a pretrial conference, no later than 30 days in advance of trial).) However, a trial court may also “on its own motion . . . make such an order at any time.” (Id.)

On the facts of this case, and given that in the Personal Injury Court system this case will be tried by a different court than the court ruling on this motion, the Court finds it appropriate for the trial judge to determine whether bifurcation is warranted. In the PI Court system, the trial court rules on motions in limine, even those that significantly affect trial preparation. While this bifurcation request is not a motion in limine, the logic of having the trial judge determine it here is similar. The request for bifurcation here appears to be one for which the trial judge should make a discretionary determination based on its experience.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion to bifurcate the issue of liability from the issue of damages at trial is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

'


Case Number: ****3618    Hearing Date: November 10, 2020    Dept: 29

Ford-Helseth v. Coast Neurosurgical Associates et al. ****3618

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: ****3618    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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COAST NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Milman, Jeffrey A.