A California appellate court has affirmed a lower court's decision in favor of a surgeon accused of medical negligence. The case, filed by Donald M. Stone on September 19, 2024, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, involved allegations against Dr. Raymond B. Raven concerning post-surgical complications.
Donald M. Stone, representing himself, sued Dr. Raymond B. Raven for medical negligence following an August 31, 2022 surgery on his right hand to address carpal tunnel syndrome and other issues. Stone alleged that Dr. Raven failed to properly close the surgical incision, leading to an infection and unsightly scarring. Despite these claims, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Raven after determining that Stone did not provide expert testimony to support his allegations.
According to court documents, Stone consulted Dr. Raven in August 2022 for pain and numbness in his right hand. Diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and other conditions, Stone underwent surgery performed by Dr. Raven on August 31, 2022. Post-operative care included physical therapy and follow-up visits with Dr. Raven.
Stone's lawsuit claimed that the surgical incision was left open or improperly closed, resulting in an infection and requiring additional therapy for his hand to function normally again. In response, Dr. Raven filed a motion for summary judgment supported by a declaration from orthopedic expert Dr. Stuart Kuschner, who attested that the standard of care was met throughout the treatment process.
Dr. Kuschner's declaration detailed that during a follow-up visit on September 8, 2022, Stone's incisions were intact with no signs of infection; however, subsequent complaints led to further examination revealing swelling but still intact sutures which were later removed as part of appropriate wound care management.
The trial court found Dr. Kuschner’s expert testimony sufficient to meet the burden required for summary judgment and noted that Stone failed to present any conflicting expert evidence—a necessary component in medical malpractice cases unless the matter falls within common knowledge exceptions.
Stone appealed the decision arguing that the negligence was apparent without needing expert testimony; however, this argument was rejected as it did not align with legal standards requiring specialized knowledge beyond layperson understanding.
Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s ruling emphasizing procedural deficiencies in Stone’s appeal such as lack of supporting legal analysis and incomplete records submission which further weakened his position.
Representing himself pro se was Donald M. Stone while Schmid & Voiles attorneys Denise H Greer Patrick W Mayer Dena J Hayden Lambirth represented defendant Raymond B Raven MD Judge Frank M Tavelman presided over initial proceedings Case ID B336380