Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00006930-CU-MM-CTL, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 20, 2024

06/21/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Medical Malpractice Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2023-00006930-CU-MM-CTL WARD VS KRISTALLIS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Thanos Kristallis, DDS and San Diego Dental Health Center's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Earl Ward did not file an opposition to Defendants' motion. Pursuant to this court's local rules, this failure to respond will be regarded as a concession that Defendants' motion has merit. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd. (B).) In professional malpractice cases such as this, 'expert opinion testimony is required to prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the prevailing standard of care [citation], except in cases where the negligence is obvious to laymen.' (Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519, 523; see also Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.) '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.' (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 601, 607.) Here, Defendants presents the expert declaration of Defendant Thanos Kristallis, DDS, to support their motion. Dr. Thanos is a Board-certified Prosthodontist licensed in California since 2017, with over 30 years of experience in the dental field. For purposes of summary judgment, Dr. Kristallis is qualified to offer expert testimony in relation to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants. Dr. Kristallis explains that Plaintiff presented for a consultation on March 15, 2021, had imaging done, and indicated a desire to have his lower teeth removed. He opines that Plaintiff's lower teeth were unsalvageable due to decay and periodontal disease, but his upper teeth showed good prognosis and could be restored with a fixed zirconia bridge. Dr. Kristallis opines the extractions were successfully performed on March 16, 2021, and when he next saw Plaintiff on July 19, 2021, he noted Plaintiff was healing well and showed no signs of inflammation or swelling. From October 26, 2021, to July 27, 2022, when Plaintiff last received treatment, Dr. Kristallis successfully continued the treatment described and agreed to at the consultation, including implants and the zirconia bridge. Thereafter, Dr. Kristallis did not see Plaintiff until October 31, 2022, when he arrived at his dental office without an appointment, complained about perceived looseness in his lower hybrid prosthesis, and demanded a refund. Although Dr. Kristallis offered to take radiographs and tighten the prosthesis, Plaintiff refused.

In sum, Dr. Kristallis opines, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Defendants complied with the standard of care with respect to Plaintiff's treatment from March 15, 2021, through October 31, 2022, when he last saw Plaintiff. Thus, Dr. Kristallis expert opinion is sufficient for Defendants to meet their moving burden on summary judgment.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107867  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WARD VS KRISTALLIS [IMAGED]  37-2023-00006930-CU-MM-CTL The court will generally grant a defendant's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case when the defendant's expert renders an unopposed expert opinion. (Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836; see also, Willard v. Hagemeister (1981) 121 Cal. App. 3d 406, 409.) Here, Defendants' expert's opinion is unopposed. Accordingly, Defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.

The minute order is the order of the court with respect to Defendants' motion.

Defendants are instructed to submit a revised proposed judgment that reflects the continued hearing date of their motion for summary judgment.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107867  7