On March 28, 2018 a
Opposition to Motion filed Electronically - Opposition to Motion for New Trial
was filed
involving a dispute between
Norwoods, Natalie,
and
Dpm,
Fanous, Michael M,
for Complaint for Medical Malpractice
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Michelle B. Hemesath, Esq. (SBN: 286168) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc
Benjamin T. Ikuta, Esq. (SBN: 260878) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO RNIA
IKUTA HEMESATH, LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN D
1327 North Broadway 11/22/2023 8:54 PM
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Tel: (949) 229-5654
Fax: (949) 203—2162
Michelle@ih-llp.com
Service(aDih-llp.com
©®QQUIAUJNH
Attorneys for Plaintiff NATALIE NORWOODS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
NATALIE NORWOODS, CASE NO: CIVDS 1 806935
Assignedfor allpurposes t0:
Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Thomas Garza
Department: 827
vs.
MICHAEL M. FANOUS, DPM; and DOES 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
through 50, Inclusive, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Defendants. Date: December 14, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: $27
Complaint Filed: March 28,2018
Trial Date: June 5, 2023
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
“\IONUIBOJNHGQWQGNUIBMNHG
_1_
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
As a preliminary matter, lead counsel in this matter Michelle Hemesath was originally tasked t0
oppose this motion. Ms. Hemesath was the primary attorney on this case, performed all of the work—up
and law and motion, and at trial handled opening, closing, and the key Witnesses. Mr. Ikuta did not
become involved in this case at all until trial and knew nothing about the case until the eve of trial.
©WQQUI£UJNH
Due to issues with confusion as to the exact date 0f the filing 0f Defendant’s motion and problems
With the service of the ex part6 application filed by the defense, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would file
an opposition by November 21, 2023. (See Code CiV. Proc. § 659a). On November 19, 2023, Ms.
Hemesath unexpectedly went into labor and delivered her child that evening. She was originally not
supposed to deliver until early December. Given Ms. Hemesath’s unexpected delivery, defense counsel
generously agreed t0 an extension t0 file this opposition to November 22, 2023.
Accordingly, Mr. Ikuta had t0 prepare this opposition despite having less knowledge 0f this case
than Ms. Hemesath. If the court seems inclined t0 grant this motion, Plaintiff requests that Ms. Hemesath
be provided an opportunity t0 prepare and file supplemental briefing.
I. Statement 0f Facts
A. Defendant Negligently Placed a Screw in the Plaintiff’s Toe Joint and Negligently
Ignored Radiologist Reports that the Screw was Improperly Placed.
This case involves the negligence of Michael Fanous, M.D. (“Defendant”) negligently placing a
screw into the metatarsalphalangeal joint of Natalie Norwoods toe during a bunioectomy performed on
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
“\IQUIhMNH©\Dw\IO\UIhUJNHG
January 20, 2017. Not only did Defendant place the screw into the joint, he negligently ignored and
disregarded three separate radiology reports that showed that the screw was into the joint and causing
damage. This included reports from radiologist Alma Loya, MD. on March 3, 2017 and radiologist
Alexander Grimm, M.D. on April 14, 2017, and Robert Young, M.D. on June 21, 2017.
In her report dated March 3, 2017, Dr. Loya stated: “The screw appears to reach the cortical
metatarsal surface and extending t0 the joint space.” (Exhibit 3 at p. 6.) On April 14, 2017, Dr. Grimm
wrote that the “screw is unchanged in appearance.” (Exhibit 3 at p. 4.) At his deposition, Which was
played to a jury, Dr. Grimm was clear that the screw was in the joint and reached the farther side 0f the
proximal phalanx. (Exhibit A at pp. 26221-2727.) Lastly, Defendant negligently ignored Dr. Young’s
report dated June 2 1 2017,
,
Which stated in two separate places that the “screw does penetrate into the first
_2_
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Document Filed Date
November 22, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 28, 2018
Category
Complaint for Medical Malpractice
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Michelle B. Hemesath, Esq. (SBN: 286168) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Autc Benjamin T. Ikuta, Esq. (SBN: 260878) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFO RNIA IKUTA HEMESATH, LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDIN D 1327 North Broadway 11/22/2023 8:54 PM Santa Ana, CA 92706 Tel: (949) 229-5654 Fax: (949) 203—2162 Michelle@ih-llp.com Service(aDih-llp.com ©®QQUIAUJNH Attorneys for Plaintiff NATALIE NORWOODS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER NATALIE NORWOODS, CASE NO: CIVDS 1 806935 Assignedfor allpurposes t0: Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Thomas Garza Department: 827 vs. MICHAEL M. FANOUS, DPM; and DOES 1 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO through 50, Inclusive, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Defendants. Date: December 14, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: $27 Complaint Filed: March 28,2018 Trial Date: June 5, 2023 NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH “\IONUIBOJNHGQWQGNUIBMNHG _1_ PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL As a preliminary matter, lead counsel in this matter Michelle Hemesath was originally tasked t0 oppose this motion. Ms. Hemesath was the primary attorney on this case, performed all of the work—up and law and motion, and at trial handled opening, closing, and the key Witnesses. Mr. Ikuta did not become involved in this case at all until trial and knew nothing about the case until the eve of trial. ©WQQUI£UJNH Due to issues with confusion as to the exact date 0f the filing 0f Defendant’s motion and problems With the service of the ex part6 application filed by the defense, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would file an opposition by November 21, 2023. (See Code CiV. Proc. § 659a). On November 19, 2023, Ms. Hemesath unexpectedly went into labor and delivered her child that evening. She was originally not supposed to deliver until early December. Given Ms. Hemesath’s unexpected delivery, defense counsel generously agreed t0 an extension t0 file this opposition to November 22, 2023. Accordingly, Mr. Ikuta had t0 prepare this opposition despite having less knowledge 0f this case than Ms. Hemesath. If the court seems inclined t0 grant this motion, Plaintiff requests that Ms. Hemesath be provided an opportunity t0 prepare and file supplemental briefing. I. Statement 0f Facts A. Defendant Negligently Placed a Screw in the Plaintiff’s Toe Joint and Negligently Ignored Radiologist Reports that the Screw was Improperly Placed. This case involves the negligence of Michael Fanous, M.D. (“Defendant”) negligently placing a screw into the metatarsalphalangeal joint of Natalie Norwoods toe during a bunioectomy performed on NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH “\IQUIhMNH©\Dw\IO\UIhUJNHG January 20, 2017. Not only did Defendant place the screw into the joint, he negligently ignored and disregarded three separate radiology reports that showed that the screw was into the joint and causing damage. This included reports from radiologist Alma Loya, MD. on March 3, 2017 and radiologist Alexander Grimm, M.D. on April 14, 2017, and Robert Young, M.D. on June 21, 2017. In her report dated March 3, 2017, Dr. Loya stated: “The screw appears to reach the cortical metatarsal surface and extending t0 the joint space.” (Exhibit 3 at p. 6.) On April 14, 2017, Dr. Grimm wrote that the “screw is unchanged in appearance.” (Exhibit 3 at p. 4.) At his deposition, Which was played to a jury, Dr. Grimm was clear that the screw was in the joint and reached the farther side 0f the proximal phalanx. (Exhibit A at pp. 26221-2727.) Lastly, Defendant negligently ignored Dr. Young’s report dated June 2 1 2017, , Which stated in two separate places that the “screw does penetrate into the first _2_ PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL