This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:21:34 (UTC).

SHOHREH RASHTIAN VS SAMUEL SWAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/15/2017 SHOHREH RASHTIAN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SAMUEL SWAN. 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:

    ****3482

  • Filing Date:

    11/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • 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

RASHTIAN SHOHREH

Defendants and Respondents

SMITHS MEDICA ASD INC

VOGEL HILARY

DOES 1 TO 60

SWAN SAMUEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ARDALAN P. CHRISTOPHER ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

PEARCE CHARLES W.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/10/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

4/25/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/29/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/3/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS SAMUEL SWAN AND HILARY SWAN'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

8/2/2018: DEFENDANTS SAMUEL SWAN AND HILARY SWAN'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

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

2/28/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/26/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

SUMMONS

11/21/2017: SUMMONS

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

11/15/2017: COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District) (-FSC:9-9-19- Trial:9-19-19); Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • DEFENDANTS SAMUEL SWAN AND HILARY SWAN'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2018
  • Answer; Filed by SAMUEL SWAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • Answer; Filed by SMITHS MEDICA ASD, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by SMITHS MEDICA ASD, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • Summons; Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SHOHREH RASHTIAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC683482    Hearing Date: October 30, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

shohreh rashtian,

Plaintiff,

v.

samuel swan, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC683482

Hearing Date: October 30, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to compel independent medical examination

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Shohreh Rashtian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action following a motor vehicle collision with Defendant Samuel Swan (“Defendant”). Now, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to a physical examination with Jerry Sebag, M.D. (“Dr. Sebag”). Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is granted in part and denied in part.

Legal Standard

When the physical condition of the plaintiff is in controversy in a personal injury case, the defendant may obtain a physical examination of the plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2032.020, 2032.220.) A defendant is permitted to one physical examination of the plaintiff in a personal injury action on demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that she suffered a partial vitreous detachment and retinal hole as a result of the underlying accident. Accordingly, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to submit to an examination by Dr. Sebag, who is an ophthalmologist. Defendant is entitled to an examination. However, the proposed scope of the examination violates Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220(a)(1), which prohibits any medical examination with “any diagnostic test or procedure that is painful, protracted, or intrusive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.220, subd. (a)(1).)

In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff has submitted a declaration from Swaraj Bose, M.D. (“Dr. Bose”), who is an ophthalmologist and one of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Dr. Bose states that the fundus photography that Dr. Sebag proposes to perform poses a risk of causing damage to Plaintiff’s retina. (Declaration of Swaraj Bose, M.D., ¶ 7.) Likewise, Dr. Bose states that the fluorescein angiography would require Plaintiff to undergo injections which may damage to her retina. (Id., ¶ 8.) Dr. Bose further states that the AVISO ultrasound that Dr. Sebag proposes to perform is not FDA approved and can cause cavitation in the tissue, with unknown long-term impacts. (Id., ¶ 9.) Finally, Dr. Bose states that the OPTOS/SLO is not FDA approved, and is not a standard diagnostic device for Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff also relies on the deposition testimony of Dr. Galareh Dana (“Dr. Dana”), formerly known as Dr. Galareh Abedi, another of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Dr. Dana recommends against any testing that is not medically necessary due to Plaintiff’s condition and corroborates Dr. Bose’s view that certain tests may harm Plaintiff. (Declaration of P. Christopher Ardalan, Exh. #3, at pp. 52-56.

In support of his reply brief, Defendant proffers a declaration from Dr. Bose stating: (1) Fundus photography does not involve intense light exposure and will not damage Plaintiff’s eyes; (2) Flourescein angiography “is a routine test performed on a daily basis” and has “excellent safety and efficacy;” (3) AVISO ultrasound is FDA approved and has “excellent safety and efficacy;” and (4) the OPTOS/SLO takes two minutes per eye and only requires Plaintiff to click a button when she sees a light. (Declaration of Jerry Sebag, ¶¶ 5-8.)

Plaintiff has satisfied her burden of establishing that certain tests are prohibited under section 2032.220(a)(1). Not only does Plaintiff proffer two ophthalmologists, neither is a retained expert relying on Plaintiff’s counsel for future business. Both believe there is some risk of harm, and Dr. Sebag’s declaration does not provide comfort because it does not eliminate this possibility. Therefore, Defendant’s motion is denied without prejudice to Defendant re-noticing a medical examination without any tests that violate section 2032.220(a)(1).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant is entitled to a medical examination of Plaintiff, which shall occur within thirty (30) days of notice. However, Defendant is not entitled to conduct any test that is painful or risks further harm to Plaintiff, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.220(a)(1). Nor may Defendant conduct any test that is not approved by the FDA. Specifically, the examination may not include fundus photograph, fluorescein angiography, an AVISO ultrasound, or the OPTOS/SLO test. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: October 30, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court