Smith v. Kalatzis CA2/5

California Court of Appeal May 8, 2025 No. B334125Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the moving parties met their initial burden of proof with expert declarations, and the plaintiff failed to provide opposing expert evidence or establish a triable issue of fact. The court further held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the standard of care for managing a patient with one kidney is not within the common knowledge of a layperson.

Issues

Whether the defendants' expert declarations were sufficient to shift the burden of proof on summary judgment.
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the alleged medical malpractice regarding renal care.
Whether the trial court erred in granting unopposed motions for summary judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

Filed 5/8/25 Smith v. Kalatzis CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

NAILAH SMITH, B334125

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BC712013)

CHRISTOS KALATZIS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Jay Ford, III, Judge. Affirmed. Gary Rand & Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis and Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza and David Z. Sohn for Defendants and Respondents. _________________________

Plaintiff Nailah Smith appeals from a judgment following orders granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Christos Kalatzis, M.D., Ronald Lang, M.D., Olympia Health Care, LLC, doing business as Olympia Medical Center (Olympia), and Alecto Heathcare Services, doing business as Olympia Medical Center (Alecto) in this medical malpractice action.1 Smith contends: (1) the moving parties’ evidence was not sufficient to shift the burden on summary judgment, and (2) triable issues of fact exist under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because it is common knowledge that a person with one kidney may be susceptible to increased risk of renal dysfunction requiring the care of a kidney specialist. We conclude the trial court properly granted the unopposed motions for summary judgment, and therefore, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 25, 2018, Smith filed an action against several medical treatment providers, including Kalatzis, Lang, Olympia, and Alecto, for medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, concealment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Smith alleged that Bruce McLucas, M.D., recommended undergoing an embolization procedure to treat her uterine fibroids. McLucas performed the surgery, with assistance from anesthesiologist Kalatzis. The defendants and their staff administered and prescribed medications that were contraindicated for a person with one kidney and were a substantial factor causing Smith to suffer renal injury. Smith

Smith v. Kalatzis CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

NAILAH SMITH, B334125

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

C. Res Ipsa Loquitor

DISPOSITION

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

KIM (D.), J.

AI Brief