This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/30/2020 at 09:25:53 (UTC).

LISA KIRKES VS DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA PC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/13/2018 LISA KIRKES filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA PC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7533

  • Filing Date:

    03/13/2018

  • 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 Judge

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KIRKES LISA

Defendants and Respondents

HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP INC.

ANTHONY MARTIN D.P.M.

DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA P.C.

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

VAN ALLEN BRIAN

VAN ALLEN BRIAN SCOTT

Defendant Attorney

LAW YUK K. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED STATUTORY DEADLINES

7/16/2020: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED STATUTORY DEADLINES

Order - ORDER RE STIPULATION AND ORDER

7/20/2020: Order - ORDER RE STIPULATION AND ORDER

Motion to Continue - MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

2/5/2020: Motion to Continue - MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

1/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL)

Reply - REPLY RE DEFENDANTS' MSJ

1/3/2020: Reply - REPLY RE DEFENDANTS' MSJ

Objection - OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF OUZOUNIAN RE MSJ

1/3/2020: Objection - OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF OUZOUNIAN RE MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION OF TYE J. OUZOUNIAN, M.D., IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF TYE J. OUZOUNIAN, M.D., IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12/26/2019: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Response - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED AND MATERIAL FACTS

12/26/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED AND MATERIAL FACTS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ELWINA GRIGORYAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA, P.C., HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,

10/25/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ELWINA GRIGORYAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA, P.C., HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,

Motion for Summary Judgment

10/25/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA, P.C., HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., AND ANTH

10/25/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING NOTICE OF LODGING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS DAVITA MEDICAL GROUP CALIFORNIA, P.C., HEALTHCARE PARTNERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., AND ANTH

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

6/28/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

9/24/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Notice of Appearance - -NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

4/12/2018: Notice of Appearance - -NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Notice of Appearance - -NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY

4/12/2018: Notice of Appearance - -NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY

SUMMONS -

3/13/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

3/13/2018: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES) -

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/22/2021
  • Hearing06/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2021
  • Hearing06/08/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • Hearing03/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2020
  • DocketOrder (re Stipulation and Order); Filed by Lisa Kirkes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order (to Continue Trial and All Related Statutory Deadlines); Filed by Lisa Kirkes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Davita Medical Group California, P.C. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Davita Medical Group California, P.C. (Defendant); Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant); D.P.M. Anthony Martin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Davita Medical Group California, P.C. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Davita Medical Group California, P.C. (Defendant); Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (Defendant); D.P.M. Anthony Martin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Appearance -NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Appearance -NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANT ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Lisa Kirkes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697533    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: 32

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

lisa kirkes,

Plaintiff,

v.

davita medical group california, p.c., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC697533

Hearing Date: March 2, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendants’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Plaintiff Lisa Kirkes (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Davita Medical Group California, P.C., Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc., and Anthony Martin, DPM, M.D. (collectively, “Defendants”) based on their treatment of Plaintiff’s foot condition. Defendants move to continue the trial date, currently set for September 4, 2020, to October 2, 2020.

Defendants move to continue trial because of the unavailability of counsel. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, a trial continuance may be appropriate due to “unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c).) Here, Defendants rely on a declaration of their counsel, Trevor C. Wong (“Counsel”). Counsel states that Defendants’ trial counsel, Yuk K. Law, will be out of the country on the planned trial date. This is “an affirmative showing of good cause” that supports the requested continuance. Plaintiff stipulates to the continuance. Accordingly, the motion is granted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 (c).) However, the Court does not extend the discovery and motions cut-off, as the motion demonstrates no need to do so.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to continue is granted. The final status conference and trial dates are advanced and vacated. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: September 18, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

Trial: October 2, 2020, at 8:30 a.m.

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the former trial date (September 4, 2020). Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 2, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC697533    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: 5

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

lisa Kirkes,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAvita Medical Group California, P.C., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC697533

Hearing Date: January 9, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANTs’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff Lisa Kirkes (“Plaintiff”) this medical malpractice action against Defendants Davita Medical Group California, P.C. (“Davita”); Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (“Healthcare”); Anthony Martin, DPM (“Dr. Martin”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent with respect to surgery on Plaintiff’s left foot, specifically, excision of ulceration and removal of osseous prominence of the plantar left foot. Now, Defendants move for summary judgment, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]  There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  In ruling on the motion, “the court may not weigh the plaintiff's evidence or inferences against the defendant[’s] as though it were sitting as the trier of fact.”  (Id. at 856.)  However, the court “must . . . determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact.”  (Ibid., emphasis original.)  

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court overrules Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Tye J. Ouzounian. The Court need not rule on the remaining objections. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(q).)

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a claim for professional negligence against a medical professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a medical professional had a duty to use the skill, prudence and diligence that members of the profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) breach of that duty; (3) an injury that resulted from the breach of that duty; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the breach of that duty. (Banerian v. O’Malley (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 604, 612.) Expert testimony is the only admissible evidence on breach of the standard of care. (Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410.)

Defendants argue that Dr. Martin was not negligent and that any negligence did not cause Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants also argue that because Dr. Martin is not liable, neither Davita nor Healthcare are vicariously liable for Dr. Martin’s actions. Defendants proffer the declaration of Dr. Robert Lee, a podiatrist, who opines that Dr. Martin did not breach the standard of care during Plaintiff’s surgery and post-operative recovery process. (Declaration of Robert Lee, ¶¶ 30-31.) Dr. Lee also opines that Dr. Martin’s treatment did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id., ¶ 32.) This evidence is sufficient to satisfy Defendants’ prima facie burden, shifting the burden to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ rely on the declaration of Dr. Tye J. Ouzounian, a podiatrist. Dr. Ouzounian opines that Dr. Martin’s care and treatment fell below the standard of care. (Declaration of Tye J. Ouzounian, ¶ 6.) Specifically, Dr. Ouzounian opines that “[i]n June 2016 [Dr. Martin] should have followed [Plaintiff] clinically to make certain that her Charcot arthropathy was not progressing and was healing appropriately.” (Id., ¶ 6(i).) “Appropriate medical care required an aggressive surgical debridement and antibiotic management.” (Ibid.)

Dr. Ouzounian also opines that Dr. Martin’s lapse caused Plaintiff’s injuries: “Due to his failure to provide appropriate clinical follow up and recommendations, [Plaintiff] developed wound healing complications.” (Ibid.) Specifically, Dr. Ouzounian opines that “[h]ad Dr. Martin provided aggressive surgical debridement and antibiotic management, more likely than not, [Plaintiff] would not have developed sepsis in August 2017, resulting in her neat death experience.” (Ibid.) Dr. Ouzounian opines that because of Dr. Martin’s negligence, Plaintiff “requires amputation of the left foot.” (Ibid.) Finally, Dr. Ouzounian opines that Plaintiff “would not have had her sepsis and near-death experience in August 2017, and she would not have needed hospitalization at the Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital,” but for Dr. Martin’s negligence. (Id., ¶ 7.) This evidence is sufficient to give rise to a triable issue.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

DATED: January 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court