Stoddard v. Ravael CA2/7

Filed 9/17/14 Stoddard v. Ravael CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

ALEEKA STODDARD, B252791 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC117296) v.

SEAN S. RAVAEI,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Samantha Jessner, Judge. Affirmed.

Aleeka Stoddard, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Susson, Parrett & Odell and Edward L. Schumann for Defendant and Respondent.

_______________________

Respondent Sean D. Ravaei, D.P.M. obtained summary judgment on a medical negligence complaint filed by plaintiff Aleeka Stoddard. Stoddard appeals, claiming that the summary judgment erroneously deprived her of compensation pursuant to the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975, Civil Code section 3333.2 (MICRA). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Stoddard filed a complaint against Ravaei and others contending, that Ravaei negligently performed surgery on her hammertoes, resulting in damage to the look and function of her toes. Ravaei moved for summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, arguing that his treatment of Stoddard was within the standard of care. In support of his motion, Ravaei submitted his own expert declaration and a declaration from a podiatry expert, Bruce Martin Dobbs, D.P.M. Ravaei declared that he did not act negligently and his treatment was within the applicable standard of care. After reviewing Ravaei’s procedure notes and Stoddard’s medical records, Dobbs declared that Ravaei’s treatment was within the standard of care. Both doctors testified that Stoddard’s injuries were inherent risks of the surgeries. In opposition to Ravaei’s motion, Stoddard failed to offer an expert declaration. Instead, Stoddard presented: 1) a letter from the Medical Board of California responding to her complaint against Ravaei; 2) email correspondence with Ali Sadrieh, D.P.M.; 3) medical notations from Jennifer Woo, D.P.M.; and 4) her unsigned settlement proposal. Ravaei submitted evidentiary objections to all of Stoddard’s documents with the exception of the letter from the Medical Board of California. The trial court sustained Ravaei’s evidentiary objections and entered judgment on the motion. Stoddard appeals.