On July 13, 2018 a
Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
was filed
involving a dispute between
Wilcox Brigit,
and
Iyengar Suresh S. Dds Summary Judgment,
Iyengar Suresh S. Summary Judgment,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 3
BC713869 August 6, 2019
BRIGIT WILCOX VS SURESH IYENGAR 1:30 PM
Judge: Honorable Jon R. Takasugi CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: L. Klein ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Brigit Wilcox In Pro Per
For Defendant(s): Jack R Reinholtz Submits by E-mail
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment
Hearing is held.
Counsel for Defendant submits on the Court's tentative via the Court's electronic mail system,
and plaintiff appears this date to argue.
The Court has read and considered all the papers submitted to the Court, and heard the argument
of counsel this date. The Court adopts its tentative as the Court's order as follows:
Plaintiff, Brigit Wilcox filed this action against Defendant, Suresh S. Iyengar, individually and
dba Suresh S. Iyengar, DDS for (a) dental malpractice and (b) battery. Plaintiff alleges, at ¶3 of
her complaint, that Defendant performed multiple unauthorized root canals.” Plaintiff alleges
these root canals have caused her to suffer damages, including inability to close her mouth,
extreme pain, a lisp, inability to chew food properly, etc. Plaintiff alleges other dentists have told
her Defendant performed the procedures negligently.
2. Motion for Summary Judgment
a. Moving Argument
At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment, contending (a) he complied with the
standard of care at all times, (b) nothing he did caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s claimed
damages, and (c) he had informed consent for all procedures he performed. Defendant supports
his motion with his own declaration, wherein he declares he did not perform any root canals on
Plaintiff, and all procedures he did perform complied with the standard of care.
b. Standard of Care
The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a
matter within the knowledge of experts. Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317.
Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of
the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s
Minute Order Page 1 of 4
Document Filed Date
August 06, 2019
Case Filing Date
July 13, 2018
Status
Summary Judgment 10/07/2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Department 3 BC713869 August 6, 2019 BRIGIT WILCOX VS SURESH IYENGAR 1:30 PM Judge: Honorable Jon R. Takasugi CSR: None Judicial Assistant: L. Klein ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Brigit Wilcox In Pro Per For Defendant(s): Jack R Reinholtz Submits by E-mail NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing is held. Counsel for Defendant submits on the Court's tentative via the Court's electronic mail system, and plaintiff appears this date to argue. The Court has read and considered all the papers submitted to the Court, and heard the argument of counsel this date. The Court adopts its tentative as the Court's order as follows: Plaintiff, Brigit Wilcox filed this action against Defendant, Suresh S. Iyengar, individually and dba Suresh S. Iyengar, DDS for (a) dental malpractice and (b) battery. Plaintiff alleges, at ¶3 of her complaint, that Defendant performed multiple unauthorized root canals.” Plaintiff alleges these root canals have caused her to suffer damages, including inability to close her mouth, extreme pain, a lisp, inability to chew food properly, etc. Plaintiff alleges other dentists have told her Defendant performed the procedures negligently. 2. Motion for Summary Judgment a. Moving Argument At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment, contending (a) he complied with the standard of care at all times, (b) nothing he did caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and (c) he had informed consent for all procedures he performed. Defendant supports his motion with his own declaration, wherein he declares he did not perform any root canals on Plaintiff, and all procedures he did perform complied with the standard of care. b. Standard of Care The standard of care against which the acts of health care providers are to be measured is a matter within the knowledge of experts. Elcome v. Chin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 310, 317. Unless the conduct required by the particular circumstances is within the common knowledge of the layman, the standard of care in a malpractice action can only be proved by an expert’s Minute Order Page 1 of 4