Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV26268, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26268    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff Tatev Pirumyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Elizabeth Alonso Flores (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 25 for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. This is a continuance of the March 30, 2023, hearing regarding Plaintiff Tatev Pirumyan’s request for default judgment.

In her previous request for default judgment, Plaintiff submitted an exhibit that states that if recommended injections are effective, Plaintiff would be a candidate for a procedure that costs approximately $30,000 to $40,000.00. (Min. Order, March 30, 2023.) Plaintiff does not state which of these treatments, if any, she intends to undergo. (Ibid.) The Court stated that Plaintiff must clarify the amount being sought for future medical expenses and which recommended procedures she intends to undergo. (Ibid.) On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of her request for default judgment.

In a prove-up hearing, the facts stated in the declarations must be within the declarant's personal knowledge and must be set forth with particularity. (CCP § 585(d).) Each declaration must show affirmatively that the declarant, if sworn as a witness, can testify competently to the facts set forth in the declaration. (Ibid.; Holloway v. Quetel (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1432.) Declarations that do not comply with CCP § 585(d) are “useless as evidence.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287–288 (submitted documents were not only unintelligible, but were also unsupported by any foundation suggesting how, when, or by whom they were created).

Here, Plaintiff submits her declaration and what appear to be medical records from her treatment on April 24, 2020, with Peyman Gravori, D.O. (Decl. Pirumyan ¶ 10, Ex. 4.) She states, “Dr. Gravori recommended a series of three Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Block injections at the bilateral L4-S1 level at an approximate cost of $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 each. Dr. Gravori also recommended Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Radiofrequency Rhizotomy or Chemical Neurolysis at an approximate cost of $30,000.00 to $40,000.00. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct of their Itemized Detail, along with diagnostic reports. I seek to undergo a Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Radiofrequency Rhizotomy that will cost $40,000.00.” However, the Court finds the assertion to be inadequate because the recommendation by Dr. Gravori for the Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Radiofrequency Rhizotomy or Chemical Neurolysis was contingent upon successful treatment with the Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Block injections. It does not appear that Dr. Gravori’s recommendation for the Lumbar Facet Medial Branch Radiofrequency Rhizotomy or Chemical Neurolysis can be elected on its own without prior treatment. Furthermore, it is unclear how Dr. Gravori comes to the dollar estimates for the procedures, as his personal knowledge of the dollar estimates is not articulated. Finally, the consultation occurred in April of 2020, which was over 3 years ago. If Plaintiff has undergone these procedures since then, Plaintiff should simply submit her receipts. Documentation of any insurance payments would also be helpful to this Court. If Plaintiff has not undergone any additional procedures since the April 2020 consultation, the Court would like to understand the reason.

Plaintiff also seeks $30,000.00 for general damages, including pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, inconvenience, and anxiety. “For harm to body, feelings or reputation, compensatory damages reasonably proportioned to the intensity and duration of the harm can be awarded without proof of amount other than evidence of the nature of the harm…. The discretion of the judge or jury determines the amount of recovery, the only standard being such an amount as a reasonable person would estimate as fair compensation.” (Duarte v. Zachariah (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1652, 1664-1665.) Here, Plaintiff states in her declaration, “I suffered intense pain for several months following the incident and have ensuing and possibly permanent pain in my back from my injuries…I presently suffer from daily pain that ranges from moderate to severe in intensity. Due to this constant suffering, I have pain in my lower back when standing or walking for a prolonged period of time. Sleepless nights have caused me mental anguish, as my pain is often inescapable. Indeed, I rarely experience pain-free moments, and I never have times when I feel as healthy as before my accident.” (Decl. Pirumyan ¶ 11.) The Court finds the Plaintiff’s declaration is sufficient to support her claim for general damages.

However, based on the previously noted deficiencies, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

       Dated this 24^th day of May 2023