This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/26/2018 at 11:02:16 (UTC).

LEONID RUDIN ET AL VS HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/12/2017 LEONID RUDIN filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1280

  • Filing Date:

    05/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KIERZENBLAT HAVIVA

RUDIN LEONID

Respondents and Defendants

MOAZZAM ALAN M. D.

LIU MAY M.D.

DAGA NIKHIL M.D.

HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL

DOES 1 TO 100

DURAIRAT AZHIL M.D.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

SILBERBERG MARSHALL ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

BLESSEY RAYMOND L. ESQ

LAMB MICHAEL V. ESQ.

WEISS DAVID J. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

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

9/11/2018: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

9/26/2018: NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

Order

10/5/2018: Order

Minute Order

10/5/2018: Minute Order

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

10/10/2018: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF NAME OF LAW FIRM

4/5/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF NAME OF LAW FIRM

NOTICE OF MOTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENI MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOHN S. CAYLEY AND MICHAEL EILBERT, M.D.

7/18/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENI MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOHN S. CAYLEY AND MICHAEL EILBERT, M.D.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM M.D.

7/18/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM M.D.

APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

7/18/2018: APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF DEFENDANT ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/15/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/15/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

COMPLAINT 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

5/12/2017: COMPLAINT 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

SUMMONS

5/17/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MAY LIU, M.D.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC

6/26/2017: DEFENDANTS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MAY LIU, M.D.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; ETC

Proof of Service

7/7/2017: Proof of Service

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Marshall, Silberberg, Esq. (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 7, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • DocketOrder (name extension) (transferring personal injury case to independent calendar court); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 10/05/2018); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT 1. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 2. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Leonid Rudin (Plaintiff); Haviva Kierzenblat (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1280 Hearing Date: July 18, 2022 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: July 18, 2022 TRIAL DATE: October 18, 2022

CASE: LEONID RUDIN and HAVIVA KIERZENBLAT v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, MAY LIU, M.D., ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D., AZHIL DURAIRAT, M.D., NIKHIL DAGA, M.D., and DOES 1-100, inclusive.

CASE NO.: ****1280

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital

RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.

SERVICE: Filed May 5, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital (“Moving Party”) requests an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to its request for production of documents, set six.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Leonid Rudin (“Plaintiff”) and Haviva Kierzenblat’s (“Kierzenblat”) claim for medical malpractice against Defendants Huntington Hospital, May Liu, M.D. (“Dr. Liu”), Alan Moazzam, M.D., Azhil Durairant, M.D., and Nikhil Daga, M.D. (“Defendants”).

Plaintiff allege that in February 2017, he presented to Huntington Hospital with complaints of severe chest pain and an abnormal EKG. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive timely cardiac intervention and that thus his heart is irreparably damaged. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 12, 2017, alleging two causes of action for (1) medical negligence and (2) loss of consortium.

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion is tentatively denied.

The motion is continued for fourteen (14) days for Moving Party to submit a separate statement.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Moving Party provides that it served Plaintiff with its request for production of documents, set six, on March 9, 2022. (Mores Decl. 4.) Moving Party provides that Plaintiff responded late on April 19, 2022. (Id. 5.) Moving Party asserts the responses are insufficient.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (a)(3), provides that a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents must be accompanied by a separate statement. Moving Party has not attached a separate statement to this present motion.

CONCLUSION

The motion is tentatively denied without prejudice.

The motion is continued to August 4th at 8:30 am for Moving Party to submit a separate statement.

Dated: July 18, 2022

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.



Case Number: ****1280 Hearing Date: June 16, 2022 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: June 16, 2022 TRIAL DATE: October 18, 2022

CASE: LEONID RUDIN and HAVIVA KIERZENBLAT v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, MAY LIU, M.D., ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D., AZHIL DURAIRAT, M.D., NIKHIL DAGA, M.D., and DOES 1-100, inclusive.

CASE NO.: ****1280

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Huntington Hospital

RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.

SERVICE: Filed May 4, 2022

OPPOSITION: No opposition filed.

REPLY: Notice of non-opposition filed June 9, 2022.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant Huntington Hospital moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to its request for production of documents set six.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Leonid Rudin (“Plaintiff”) and Haviva Kierzenblat’s (“Kierzenblat”) claim for medical malpractice against Defendants Huntington Hospital, May Liu, M.D. (“Dr. Liu”), Alan Moazzam, M.D., Azhil Durairant, M.D., and Nikhil Daga, M.D. (“Defendants”).

Plaintiff allege that in February 2017, he presented to Huntington Hospital with complaints of severe chest pain and an abnormal EKG. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive timely cardiac intervention and that thus his heart is irreparably damaged. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 12, 2017, alleging two causes of action for (1) medical negligence and (2) loss of consortium.

TENTATIVE RULING

(Unless the parties resolve this matter by stipulation)

The motion will be continued 14 days for Huntington Hospital to submit a separate statement.

LEGAL STANDARD

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

Huntington Hospital provides that on March 9, 2022, it propounded its request for production of documents set six on Plaintiff. (Mores Decl. 4.) Hunting Hospital further provides that the responses were insufficient. However, Huntington Hospital does not provide a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345.

CONCLUSION

The motion will be continued 14 days for Huntington Hospital to submit a separate statement.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUPPLEMENTAL

Huntington Hospital’s Burden

The first issue resulting from the hearing was whether Huntington Hospital met its burden of establishing that it acted within the standard of care. When bringing the present motion, both Huntington Hospital and Dr. Liu relied on the declaration of Dr. Gary Vilke. Dr. Vilke provides he is a physician engaged in the practice of Emergency Medicine. (Vilke Decl. 2.) As an initial matter, Dr. Vilke does not provide that he is familiar with the applicable standard of care for hospital staff or operations. He does state that he is “thoroughly familiar with the standard of practice for emergency medicine, as the standard of practice existed in 2017, and as it exists today.” (Id. 2.) Dr. Vilke’s statements could lead to the logical conclusion that he is familiar with the standard of care applicable to Dr. Liu. However, his statements do not establish a basis for his knowledge and expertise in non-physician staff working for a hospital.

Further, Dr. Vilke details what actions Dr. Liu took and explains how Dr. Liu acted within the standard of care. However, he does not do the same for Hunting Hospital’s staff. He merely concludes that “[i]t is further my opinion that the staff of Huntington Memorial Hospital acted appropriately at all relevant times in this case.” (Vilke Decl. 6.) The summary judgment standard “is not satisfied by laconic expert declarations which provide only an ultimate opinion, unsupported by reasoned explanation.” (Kelley v. Trunk, (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 525.) Dr. Vilke does not point to any specific act or omission nor does he explain how Huntington Hospital’s staff acted within the standard of care. He merely concludes, without any reasoned explanation, that he believes Huntington Hospital Staff acted within the standard of care.

Thus, Huntington Hospital failed to meet its burden.

Objection to the Declaration of Dr. Miles Shaw

The next issue involves Dr. Liu’s objection to Dr. Shaw’s declaration. Dr. Liu objected for lack of foundation, speculation, and lack of certainty. Dr. Liu also specifically objects to Dr. Shaw’s declaration on the grounds that Dr. Shaw fails to state the facts are based on his personal knowledge and that he is competent to testify to the facts and opinions.

“Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 437c, subd. (d).) “It is sufficient, if an expert declaration establishes the matters relied upon in expressing the opinion, that the opinion rests on matters of a type reasonably relied upon, and the bases for the opinion.” (Powell v. Kleinman (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 112, 123.) “

Here, Dr. Shaw provides the basis for his knowledge and his qualifications as a physician. (Shaw Decl. 1-2.) He states that he reviewed San Marino Fire Department and Huntington Memorial Hospital records. (Id. 4.) He also outlines his conclusions and his reasoning. (Id. 5-9.) Dr. Shaw has demonstrated his opinion is based on a review of certain documents and has established that he is competent to testify to the matters stated in his declaration based on his experience and qualifications.

The Court recognizes that Dr. Shaw’s declaration is relatively brief and lacks certain details. However, in this case, those characteristics are related to the probative value of Dr. Shaw’s declaration as opposed to its admissibility.

Dr. Liu’s objection to Dr. Shaw’s declaration is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Moving Parties’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

Dated: June 15, 2022

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court



Case Number: ****1280 Hearing Date: June 7, 2022 Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE: June 7, 2022 TRIAL DATE: October 18, 2022

CASE: LEONID RUDIN and HAVIVA KIERZENBLAT v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, MAY LIU, M.D., ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D., AZHIL DURAIRAT, M.D., NIKHIL DAGA, M.D., and DOES 1-100, inclusive.

CASE NO.: ****1280

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Huntington Hospital and May Liu, M.D. (“Moving Parties”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Leonid Rudin and Haviva Kierzenblat

SERVICE: Filed January 14, 2020

OPPOSITION: Filed May 26, 2022

REPLY: Filed June 1 and 2, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendants Huntington Hospital and May Liu, M.D. move for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Plaintiff Leonid Rudin (“Plaintiff”) and Haviva Kierzenblat’s (“Kierzenblat”) claim for medical malpractice against Defendants Huntington Hospital, May Liu, M.D. (“Dr. Liu”), Alan Moazzam, M.D., Azhil Durairant, M.D., and Nikhil Daga, M.D. (“Defendants”).

Plaintiff allege that in February 2017, he presented to Huntington Hospital with complaints of severe chest pain and an abnormal EKG. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive timely cardiac intervention and that thus his heart is irreparably damaged. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 12, 2017, alleging two causes of action for (1) medical negligence and (2) loss of consortium.

TENTATIVE RULING

Moving Parties’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

Huntington Hospital’s objections are overruled.

Dr. Liu’s objections are overruled.

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment 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.) “A party may move for summary judgement in an action or proceeding if it is contented that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 473c subd. (a)(1).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code of Civil Procedures section 473c subd. (c).)

A three-step analysis is employed in ruling on motions for summary judgment. First, the court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. Next, the court determines, when the moving party is the defendant, whether it has produced evidence showing one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action. If the defendant does so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to that cause of action or defense. (Kline v. Turner (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1369, 1373.) The court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party and accept all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.” (Ibid.; see also Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 384, 389 [Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”].)

“A defendant moving for summary judgment must show that one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. The defendant can satisfy its burden by presenting evidence that negates an element of the cause of action or evidence that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably expect to obtain evidence needed to establish an essential element. (Veera v. Banana Republic, LLC, (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 907, 914.)

DISCUSSION

Moving Parties argue in their motion that Plaintiff has failed to establish (1) that Moving Parties breached their duty to provide treatment within the standard of care and (2) that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by Huntington’s conduct.

To bring a medical malpractice action, Plaintiff must establish: “’(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. (Borrayo v. Avery, (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 304, 310.)

Standard of Cary Analysis as to Dr. Liu’s Actions

Moving Parties first assert that Dr. Liu and Huntington Hospital staff complied with the standard of care.

“California courts have incorporated the expert evidence requirement into their standard for summary judgment in medical malpractice cases. When a defendant moves for summary judgment and supports his motion with expert declarations that his conduct fell within the community standard of care, he is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff comes forward with conflicting expert evidence.” (Munro v. Regents of University of California, (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 977, 984-85.)

Moving Parties submit the declaration of Gary Vilke, M.D. (“Dr. Vilke”) who is a physician licensed to practice in California and board-certified in Emergency Medicine. (Vilke Decl. 1.) Dr. Vilke states he is familiar with the standard of practice for emergency medicine. (Id 2.) In preparation for this motion, Dr. Vilke reviewed relevant medical records, records from San Marino EMS, audio recordings of the San Marino Fire Department telephone call, and Plaintiff’s complaint and deposition transcript.

Dr. Vilke provides that on February 14, 2017, at approximately 0036, an ambulance was dispatched to respond to a call where Plaintiff was experiencing chest pain. (Vilke Decl. 5(a).) He further provides that at approximately 0046, an electrocardiogram (“EKG”) was performed in the field and that the EKG was positive for an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (“STEMI”). (Id. 5(c).) Dr. Vilke asserts that the EKG does not show a STEMI and the computer’s read was incorrect. (Ibid.) Dr. Vilke provides that the ambulance arrived at Huntington Memorial Hospital at 0101, and the EKG showed a normal sinus rhythm at 61 beats per minute (“bpm”). (Id. 5(e).) Dr. Vilke asserts that the EKG was appropriately read as suspicious of a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (“NSTEMI”) (Ibid.)

Dr. Liu assumed care of Plaintiff in the Emergency Department of Huntington Hospital at approximately 0105. (Vilke Decl. 5(f).) Dr. Liu made initial orders for pain medication, a chest x-ray, a CT angiogram, and labs, but Plaintiff initially refused aspirin. (Id 5(j).) At 0245, labs returned to show a troponin level of 0.081, which Dr. Vilke asserts is not a critical value for troponin levels. (Id. 5(l).) A repeat EKG was performed at approximately 0355 and continued to show a sinus rhythm at 62 bpm with t-wave abnormalities, which Dr. Vilke asserts continued to reflect a possible NSTEMI. (Id. 5(m).) A troponin level of 0.40 was documented at 0414 and Dr. Liu was made aware of the rising troponin levels at approximately 0455. (Id. 5(p).) Dr. Liu was then able to convince Plaintiff to take the previously ordered aspirin. (Id. 5(q).) At approximately 0507, Dr. Liu contacted cardiologist Terrence Baruch, M.D., and at approximately 0516, Dr. Liu contacted hospitalist Alan Moazzam, M.D. (Id. 5(r)-(s).)

At approximately 0735, Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital from the emergency department. (Vilke Decl. 5(x).) At approximately 1019, a heparin drip was ordered but that Plaintiff had refused heparin initially. (Id. (bb).) At 1205, an IV push of heparin is documented. (Ibid.) At 1418, a left heart catheterization and coronary angiogram revealed severe single-vessel coronary artery disease; NSTEMI, and thrombotic occlusion of the proximal-to-mid left anterior descending artery. (Id. (cc).) Plaintiff remained in the hospital until February 16, 2017, when he was discharged in stable condition. (Id. (dd).)

Dr. Vilke opines that Dr. Liu and the staff of Huntington Hospital acted within the standard of care. (Vilke Decl. 6.) He opines that Dr. Liu appropriately ordered an EKG promptly and correctly read the study as negative for a STEMI. (Ibid.) He opines that Dr. Liu made the appropriate orders from the EKG results and appropriately treated the patient while assessing possible diagnoses. (Ibid.) He opines that the repeat EKG was appropriately performed and read as abnormal but without STEMI. (Ibid.) He further opines that Dr. Liu responded appropriately to finding out about the rising troponin levels and timely contacted and informed the cardiologist and hospitalist. (Ibid.) He opines that care was appropriately transferred to those specialists. (Ibid.)

Moving Parties have met their burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot establish that Dr. Liu breached her duty to provide medical treatment within the relevant standard of care.

Causation Analysis

“In a medical malpractice action the element of causation is satisfied when a plaintiff produces sufficient evidence ‘to allow the jury to infer that in the absence of the defendant's negligence, there was a reasonable medical probability the plaintiff would have obtained a better result.’” (Espinosa V. Little Co. of Mary Hospital (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1304, 1314-15.) “[C]ausation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony.” (Dumas v. Cooney, (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1593, 1603.) The summary judgment standard “is not satisfied by laconic expert declarations which provide only an ultimate opinion, unsupported by reasoned explanation.” (Kelley v. Trunk, (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 525.)

Here, Dr. Vilke opines that no act or admission of Dr. Liu or Hunting Hospital staff was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to injury to Plaintiff. However, Dr. Vilke provides no discussion or reasoning explaining how he reached that conclusion. He provides no insight into the alleged harm or how the alleged acts or omissions are disconnected from said harm. The summary judgment standard “is not satisfied by laconic expert declarations which provide only an ultimate opinion, unsupported by reasoned explanation.” (Kelley v. Trunk, (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 525.) Because Dr. Vilke’s opinion as to the lack of causation is unsupported by reasoned explanation, Moving Parties have failed to meet their burden here.

Plaintiff’s Opposition Regarding Standard of Care

Plaintiff submits the declaration of Timothy D. Henry, M.D. (“Dr. Henry”), a physician and surgeon licensed to practice medicine in California. (Henry Decl. 1.) Dr. Henry provides that he treated Plaintiff as a cardiologist specialist in 2017 and 2018 as a result of the incident that occurred in February 2017. (Id. 5.) He also reviewed the relevant medical records and the deposition testimony transcripts. (Id. 6.) Dr. Henry opines that Plaintiff suffered from a STEMI from February 13 to February 14, 2017. (Id. 7a.) He opines that Moving Parties failed to meet the standard of care because they misdiagnosed Plaintiff and delayed percutaneous coronary intervention by almost fifteen hours. (Id. 7b.) He further opines that Moving Parties failed to administer an appropriate adjunctive medication routinely given to heart attack patients. (Ibid.)

He further opines that Dr. Liu failed to meet the standard of care by failing to activate the catheterization laboratory and transfer Plaintiff to it upon his arrival at the Emergency Department, by downgrading Plaintiff from a STEMI to an NSTEMI without a cardiology consultation, by failing to treat Plaintiff with appropriate adjunctive medications, and by disregarding Plaintiff’s persistent symptoms of an ongoing heart attack. (Henry Decl. 7ci-7civ.)

Plaintiff also submits the declaration of Miles Shaw, M.D. (“Dr. Shaw”), a physician and surgeon licensed to practice medicine in California. (Shaw Decl. 1.) Dr. Shaw opines that Dr. Liu breached the standard of care by failing to transfer Plaintiff to the catheterization laboratory or consulting cardiology upon Plaintiff’s arrival at the Emergency Department. (Id. 5ai.) He opines that Dr. Liu failed to interpret the pre-hospital EKG which has findings consistent with a STEMI. (Id. 5aii.)

Plaintiff, through his expert declarations, has established a triable issue of fact as to whether Dr. Liu and Huntington Hospital complied with the applicable standard of care in their treatment of Plaintiff.

Huntington Hospital’s Reply

Huntington Hospital argues that its motion should be granted because neither of Plaintiff’s experts states that they are familiar with the standard of care for hospitals and because neither expert states sufficient evidence to claim that Huntington Hospital acted below the standard of care.

The Court agrees that neither Dr. Henry nor Dr. Shaw provides in their declarations that they are familiar with the standard of care for hospital staff or operations. However, Huntington Hospital in its motion for summary judgment argued that the motion was warranted because “Plaintiffs’ theory against HMH is based on the alleged negligence of Dr. Liu.” (Motion at p. 9:27-28.) Stated another way, Huntington Hospital’s motion was based on a characterization of Plaintiff’s arguments that the alleged liability was predicated entirely on Dr. Liu’s actions. So, Huntington Hospital did not submit any declarations establishing that it and its staff acted entirely within the standard of care and instead focused its evidence on Dr. Liu’s conduct. Thus, the Court finds that Huntington Hospital failed to meet its initial burden of showing that Plaintiff cannot establish it acted within the standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Moving Parties’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Moving party to provide notice.

Dated: June 7, 2022

Joel L. Lofton

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely


Case Number: ****1280    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:    12
Date:         3/26/2021
Case No:      ****1280 Trial Date: December 6, 2021
Case Name: Rudin, et al. v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, et al.
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Moving Party: Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital       
Responding Party: Plaintiff Leonid Rudin   
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order compelling further responses to Requests for Production, Set Three 
MONETARY SANCTION
 None sought 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The complaint alleges that in February of 2017, plaintiff E. Leonid Rudin presented to defendant Huntington Hospital with complaints of severe chest pain and an abnormal EGK that was suspicious for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).  Plaintiff was taken to Huntington Hospital as it was a known STEMI receiving facility and held itself out as a facility with properly trained staff and physicians, which was properly equipped, managed and designed to care for patients with severe coronary emergencies.  Plaintiff alleges that he was admitted first to the emergency department where his EKGs continued to be suspicious for myocardial infarction, which is well known to lead to severe cardiac damage and death. The complaint alleges that despite the objective findings of plaintiff’s EKGs and his ongoing complaints of chest pain, plaintiff did not receive timely cardiac intervention such that his heart has been irreparably damaged. 
Plaintiff Haviva Kierzenblat, plaintiff Rudin’s spouse, brings a cause of action for loss of consortium. 
The file shows that on March 22, 2021, the court received a Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential and Highly Confidential Designations, filed by plaintiffs, pursuant to which the parties have agreed to a Protective Order.   
ANALYSIS:
The motion seeks further responses and compliance with plaintiff’s statement of compliance as to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, Requests Nos. 25 through 29, which seek documents evidencing plaintiff’s claims for loss of past and future earnings. 
Plaintiff has filed an Opposition/Response to the motion, arguing that there are two parts to the motion, one seeking further responses to the Requests for Production of Documents, and one seeking to compel production of documents plaintiff undertook to produce.   
Plaintiff indicates that to the extent the motion seeks further responses to the subject discovery, the motion is untimely and should be denied, as it is brought more than 45 days after supplemental responses were served.  
CCP ; 2031.310(c), which applies to a motion to compel further responses to document demands, and provides:
“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later late to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the inspection demand.” 
Defendant in the reply appears to concede that it is not seeking further responses to the subject discovery, indicating that “further written responses to the requests are not the crux of the motion.”   This appears to be a concession that any request for such relief would be untimely, and the Court accordingly does not order that further responses be served. 
The opposition/response indicates that with respect to the second part of the motion, seeking to compel compliance and actual production of the documents, plaintiff does not oppose this part of the motion, and has circulated a protective order based on the Los Angeles Superior Court template, and will produce documents in accordance with his statement of compliance, as well as tax returns, with appropriate redactions of such information as plaintiff’s social security number, subject to the protective order.  This appears appropriate, as there is no time limitation with respect to a motion to compel compliance with a statement of compliance.  See CCP ; 2031.320; Standon Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903 (construing predecessor CCP section 2031, subdivision (m)).  
The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential and Highly Confidential Designations, filed by plaintiffs, and signed by the parties, and will sign and enter the Stipulation and Protective Order as the order of this Court. 
This appears to render the motion moot, as plaintiff has agreed to produce documents as to each of the subject Requests, subject to the protective order. 
The reply requests that the Court enter an order requiring the production to take place as agreed within a reasonable time.  The Court will enter such an order. 
RULING:
Defendant Huntington Memorial Hospital’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set Three, Propounded to Plaintiff Leonid Rudin:
The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation and Protective Order—Confidential and Highly 
Confidential Designations, filed by plaintiffs, and signed by the parties, and will sign and enter the Stipulation and Protective Order as the order of this Court this date. 
At the concession of the parties, and subject to the Protective Order, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.  Plaintiff Leonid Rudin is ordered to produce documents and/or permit the inspection promised in written responses and in the opposition/response to this motion to Request for Production, Set Three, Requests Nos. 25 through 29, within thirty days.  Plaintiff is permitted to redact from those documents his social security number. 
Motion to compel further responses to the subject requests for production of documents is otherwise denied as untimely, at the concession in the reply. 
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 
 


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL is a litigant