On 03/16/2018 MELANIE RODRIGUEZ filed an Other lawsuit against ZAHI E NASSOURA M D. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JON R. TAKASUGI
HOLLY E. KENDIG
THOMAS D. LONG
WAKSLAK MENACHEM M.D.
PROVIDENCE TARZANA MEDICAL CENTER
NASSOURA ZAHI E. M.D.
DOES 1 TO 100
GANSEN CHRISTOPHER J.
GANSEN CHRISTOPHER JOHN
PACKER ROBERT B.
MAYER PATRICK WILLIAM
Court documents are not available for this case.
Hearing12/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing12/13/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing03/30/2021 at 14:30 PM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (Declaration); Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal (only as to Defendant Zahi E. Nassoura, M.D.); Filed by Melanie Rodriguez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Notice of Continuance of Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Zahi Nassoura, M.D.); Filed by Zahi E. M.D. Nassoura (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Trial Attorney); Filed by Menachem M.D. Wakslak (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Melanie Rodriguez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC698173 Hearing Date: January 08, 2021 Dept: 31
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
ZAHI E NASSOURA M.D., ET AL.,
Case No.: BC698173
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
January 8, 2021
Plaintiff, Melanie Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, Zahi E. Nassoura, M.D., (“Dr. Nassoura”), Menachem Wakslak, M.D., and Providence Tarzana Medical Center for medical malpractice. The complaint alleges Dr. Nassoura failed to perform Plaintiff’s heart ablation surgery and its aftercare within the appropriate standard of care.
Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendant, Dr. Nassoura moves for summary judgment on the complaint, contending the care and treatment of Plaintiff complied with the standard of care at all times and did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s damages. Dr. Nassoura submits the Declaration of Dr. David V. Cossman, M.D., who opines that Defendant acted within the standard of acre in their treatment of Plaintiff, and that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, no action or inaction on the part of Defendant caused or substantially contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. (Mot. Cossman ¿¿ 6, 12-13.)
Standard of Care
The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. (Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.) Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s testimony. Id. If the “common knowledge” exception does not apply to a medical malpractice action, expert evidence is conclusive and cannot be disregarded. (Id.)
A medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because he chooses one medically acceptable method of treatment or diagnosis and it turns out that another medically accepted method would have been a better choice. (CACI 506.) Likewise, a medical practitioner is not necessarily negligent just because his efforts are unsuccessful or he makes an error that was reasonable under the circumstances. (CACI 505.)
Whether the standard of care in the community has been breached presents the basic issue in a malpractice action and can only be proved by opinion testimony unless the medical question is within the common knowledge of laypersons. (See Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App4th 836, 844.) “‘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, 984-985.)
In order to establish that defendant's negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing injury or death, the plaintiff must prove the negligence was of itself sufficient to bring about that harm. “The law is well settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. [Citations.] That there is a distinction between a reasonable medical ‘probability’ and a medical 'possibility' needs little discussion. There can be many possible ‘causes,’ indeed, an infinite number of circumstances which can produce an injury or disease. A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” (Bromme v. Pavitt (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1498; citing Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 402 403.)
Defendant Dr. Nassoura supports the motion with the Expert Declaration of Dr. Cossman. Dr. Cossman’s declaration is sufficient to meet Dr. Nassoura’s moving burden to establish Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Mot. Cossman Decl. ¿¿ 6-13.) The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact in this regard.
As of 1/5/21, the Court has not received any opposition to the motion. Plaintiff, therefore, necessarily failed to meet the shifted burden.
Defendant, Dr. Nassoura’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2021
Hon. Thomas D. Long
Judge of the Superior Court