Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21STCV01578, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01578    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 45

LARISA STEPANTSOVA, ET AL. VS DOCS SURGICAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.

DEFENDANT GARY REZNIK, M.D.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2025 Trial Date: July 28, 2025

Department: 45 Case No.: 21STCV01578

Moving Party: Defendant Gar Reznik, M.D.

Responding Party: No opposition.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action. On January 14, 2021, Plaintiffs Larisa Stepantsova and Lana Kruglyakova filed a complaint against Defendants Docs Surgical Hospital, Rajan Patel, M.D. and Ernest Schmidt, M.D. for wrongful death. Plaintiffs allege on January 25, 2020, Vyacheslav Stepantsov past away as a result of the Defendants’ negligent acts. Plaintiff Larisa is the deceased’s wife and Plaintiff Lana is the deceased’s daughter. On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff named Gary Reznik, M.D. as Doe 1 Defendant.

On October 3, 2024, summary judgment was entered in Defendant Rajan M. Patel, M.D.’s favor.

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Defendant Gary Reznik, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Gary Reznik, M.D. moves for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. Defendant makes the motion on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiffs Larisa Stepantsova and Lana Kruglyakova’s wrongful death based on medical negligence claim against Dr. Reznik.

The elements of medical malpractice are:¿“(1) the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting from the professional's negligence.”¿¿(Simmons v. West Covina Medical Clinic¿(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 696, 701-02 (citations omitted).)¿ “Both the standard of care and defendants’ breach must normally be established by expert testimony in a medical malpractice case.”¿¿(Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

Thus, in a medical malpractice case, “[w]hen 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 (citations omitted).)¿ An expert declaration, if uncontradicted, is conclusive proof as to the prevailing standard of care and the propriety of the particular conduct of the health care provider.¿¿(Starr v.¿Mooslin¿(1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 988, 999.)¿

Dr. Reznik submits the declaration of Shahram Naiem, M.D. Dr. Naiem is a physician, board certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease and nuclear cardiology. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶2.) Dr. Naiem earned his medical degree from Sackler School of Medicine in Tel Aviv, Israel in 1997 and subsequently completed his residency in internal medicine at UCLA in 2000. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶2.) He also completed his fellowship in general, invasive and nuclear cardiology at Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center in 2003. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶2.) Dr. Naiem currently works with the Cardiology Consultants of Santa Monica. (Dr. Naiem ¶2.)

Based on his review of the documentation as well as based his education, training, and experience, Dr. Naiem opines Dr. Reznik complied with the standard of care at all times during the deceased’s care and treatment. Specifically, Dr. Reznik properly cleared Mr. Stepantsov for surgery. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶8.) In clearing a patient for surgery from a cardiology standpoint, a clinician evaluates: (1) any ongoing or new cardiovascular symptoms; (2) past medical conditions and stability on current treatment; (3) vital signs (hemodynamic stability); and (4) any changes in physical examination, EKG, and/or basic lab studies. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶8.) Mr. Stepantsov did not present with dizziness, shortness of breath, chest pain, visual/speech deficits, or motor deficit. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶8.) Moreover, Mr. Stepantsov’s paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (P-Fib) was stable, and in fact he was in normal sinus rhythm and his recent stress test was normal. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶8.) Although his creatinine was slightly elevated, it was within his normal baseline. (Dr. Naiem. Decl. ¶8.) Lastly, Mr. Stepantsov’s vital signs, physical exam, EKG and blood tests were all at his usual baseline. (Dr. Naiem. Decl. ¶8.) As a result, Dr. Reznik’s clearing of Mr. Stepantsov for the shoulder surgery was within the standard of care and it was also appropriate to advise the patient to stop taking blood thinners prior to surgery, with which the patient complied. (Dr. Naiem Decl. ¶8.)

Dr. Reznik has met their burden of showing, by expert declaration, they did not breach the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the death of Mr. Stepantsov.

The burden now shifts to Plaintiffs to show, by contrary expert declaration, that a triable issue of fact exists. Plaintiffs instead filed a notice of non-opposition. Therefore, Dr. Reznik is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, Defendant Gary Reznik, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.