Samara v. Estate of Nahigian CA2/7

Filed 11/10/14 Samara v. Estate of Nahigian CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RANA SAMARA, B248553

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC056720) v.

ESTATE OF STEPHEN NAHIGIAN, D.D.S,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William D. Stewart Judge. Affirmed. Curd, Galindo & Smith and Alexis Galindo, for Rana Samara, Plaintiff and Appellant. Taylor Blessey, N. Denise Taylor and Erica A. Levitt, for Estate of Stephen Nahigian, D.D.S., Defendant and Respondent. _______________

Rana Samara appeals from the judgment entered in this professional negligence case after the court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Stephen Nahigian on two grounds: The action was barred by the statute of limitations, and Samara had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to causation. Because Samara concedes summary judgment was proper on statute of limitations grounds, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Complaint On September 6, 2011 Samara filed a lawsuit against Dr. Nahigian and Dr. Haitham Matar for professional negligence/medical malpractice. The first amended complaint alleged that on August 16, 2010 Dr. Nahigian negligently inserted a dental implant while performing oral surgery on Samara. As a result of Dr. Nahigian’s negligence, Samara suffered permanent nerve damage. Samara alleged Dr. Nahigian was Dr. Matar’s agent/employee when he performed the surgery. 2. Dr. Nahigian’s Motion for Summary Judgment Dr. Nahigian moved for summary judgment on three grounds: (1) Samara could not demonstrate his conduct fell below the applicable standard of care or (2) caused her nerve damage, and (3) Samara’s action against him was time-barred. Dr. Nahigian submitted the declaration of Dr. Bach Le, an oral surgeon, who opined “to a reasonable degree of medical probability, that no negligent act or omission on the part of Dr. Nahigian caused or contributed to” Samara’s injuries. Samara opposed the motion, submitting with her opposition papers the declaration of Dr. Gregory Doumanian, who opined on the issues of negligence and causation. The trial court granted Dr. Nahigian’s motion for summary judgment, ruling Samara’s action against Dr. Nahigian needed to be filed no later than August 18, 2011 and was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5. Alternatively, Dr. Nahigian had met his burden on summary judgment to show Samara could not