Filed 7/14/23 Tadevosyan v. Wolff CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE BORIS TADEVOSYAN, B317648 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.19STCV36287) v. LAWRENCE A. WOLFF et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Audra Mori, Judge. Reversed. Beloryan & Manukyan, Haik A. Beloryan and Vahe Shakhgeldyan for Plaintiff and Appellant. Prindle, Goetz, Barnes & Reinholtz, Steven Maslauski and John Karimi for Defendants and Respondents. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ Boris Tadevosyan sued Lawrence A. Wolff and Lawrence A. Wolff, DDS, Inc. (collectively Wolff) for dental malpractice, lack of informed consent, and medical battery. The trial court granted summary judgment in Wolff’s favor on the ground that the one- year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure1 section 340.5 barred the action, finding that the limitations period began to run when Tadevosyan consulted an attorney and the attorney referred Tadevosyan to an expert for an independent medical examination. On appeal, Tadevosyan contends that the trial court improperly relied on privileged matter to reach its conclusion and that, in any event, Wolff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree that moving party Wolff did not satisfy its initial burden and therefore summary judgment was improper. BACKGROUND I. History of Tadevosyan’s dental treatment Tadevosyan is an Armenian immigrant who can read English but cannot understand complex conversations in English. In 2015 and 2016, Tadevosyan consulted A to Z Dental about getting dentures. A to Z Dental devised a treatment plan for extraction of four teeth and placement of four implants with an overdenture and referred him to Wolff to begin the treatment. After an initial examination, Wolff performed two surgeries on Tadevosyan. During the first surgery on March 24, 2017, Wolff resected Tadevosyan’s maxillary and mandibular cysts, fixed jaw fractures, closed fistulas and bone fractures, and placed 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 five stabilizers to support the fractured cortex and to stimulate bone growth. In June 2017, Wolff noted that Tadevosyan was “healing well.” During the second, follow-up surgery on August 11, 2017, Wolff performed hardware removal, debridement, wound closure, and resection of granulomatous neoplasm. A month later, on September 8, 2017, Tadevosyan returned to A to Z Dental. A to Z Dental told Tadevosyan that the work Wolff had performed was different than the treatment plan originally requested. Tadevosyan was disappointed that Wolff had changed the treatment plan and that what had been estimated to cost $2,000 would now be $12,000. On July 3, 2018, Tadevosyan consulted an attorney. That same day, the attorney referred him to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals