Stone v. Raven CA2/4

Filed 9/19/24 Stone v. Raven CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

DONALD M. STONE, B336380

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23BBCV00410) v.

RAYMOND B. RAVEN, M.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Frank M. Tavelman, Judge. Affirmed. Donald M. Stone, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Schmid & Voiles, Denise H. Greer, Patrick W. Mayer, and Dena J. Hayden Lambirth, for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Donald M. Stone sued defendant Raymond B. Raven, M.D. for medical negligence following a surgery performed on plaintiff’s hand. The trial court granted summary judgment in defendant’s favor, finding plaintiff did not present expert testimony to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff appealed, arguing defendant did not meet his moving burden and that the alleged negligence is a question of common knowledge that does not require expert opinion testimony. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Surgery and Medical Malpractice Action In August 2022, plaintiff consulted defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, about right-hand pain, numbness, and tingling. Defendant diagnosed plaintiff with carpal tunnel syndrome, right-ring trigger finger, and osteoarthritis in the right hand. On August 31, 2022, plaintiff underwent surgery. Defendant performed an open carpal tunnel release surgery and a tenosynovectomy and release of the right-long and right-ring fingers. Plaintiff was referred to physical therapy after the procedure and saw defendant for post-operative care. Plaintiff filed this action against defendant asserting a single cause of action for medical negligence. Plaintiff alleged that at the conclusion of the surgery, defendant “did not close (suture) the incision and/or did not close it completely such that it was left open to the environment.” Plaintiff claimed that as a result, his hand became infected, leaving an unsightly scar when it healed, and he required therapy to make his hand and fingers close completely.