A gripping legal battle has unfolded in California's Second Appellate District, where the family of a deceased patient is challenging a summary judgment in favor of a cardiologist accused of medical malpractice. The plaintiffs, Theod Simonian and his family, filed their complaint against Dr. Vahe Badalian on July 12, 2024, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The case centers around Razmi Simon, a 76-year-old man with chronic cardiovascular disease who was admitted to Glendale Adventist Medical Center for emergency hip surgery on November 20, 2018. Despite a seemingly successful operation with minimal blood loss, Simon developed critical symptoms the following day and died from complications related to undiagnosed internal bleeding on November 28, 2018. The plaintiffs allege that Dr. Badalian failed to order necessary serial hemoglobin monitoring post-surgery, which could have detected the internal bleeding early enough to prevent Simon's fatal heart attack.
Dr. Badalian moved for summary judgment supported by Dr. Fernando Roth's declaration that standard care does not require hemoglobin monitoring unless signs of bleeding are evident. According to Dr. Roth, Simon’s postoperative vitals were normal until he suddenly exhibited symptoms leading to his heart attack—a scenario that would not have been mitigated by earlier hemoglobin tests.
In opposition, the plaintiffs presented testimony from Dr. Kevin Shaw, an expert in critical care medicine. Dr. Shaw argued that serial hemoglobin monitoring is essential for patients like Simon who are on dual antiplatelet therapy and at high risk for hemorrhagic complications post-surgery. He asserted that timely detection through such monitoring could have led to interventions preventing Simon’s death.
The trial court initially sided with Dr. Badalian, deeming Dr. Shaw’s testimony inadmissible due to his lack of specific expertise in cardiology or direct experience with Simon’s exact conditions. This decision was appealed by the plaintiffs who contended that the court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Shaw's expert opinion.
Upon review, the appellate court found merit in the plaintiffs' arguments and reversed the summary judgment ruling. The court emphasized that expertise in critical care medicine sufficiently qualifies one to opine on postoperative blood loss monitoring—regardless of whether it directly pertains to cardiology or specific ailments cited by the defense.
The plaintiffs seek a reversal of the summary judgment and demand accountability from Dr. Badalian for what they argue was a clear breach of medical duty resulting in wrongful death.
Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys Carney R. Shegerian and Anthony Nguyen from Shegerian & Associates along with Mark Lim and Aadil Muhammad among others; while Kenneth R. Pedroza and Cassidy C. Davenport from Cole Pedroza represent Dr. Badalian alongside Robert B. Packer from Packer O’Leary & Corson.