In a significant legal development, the Court of Appeal of the State of California has reversed and remanded a judgment involving a medical malpractice claim against a radiologist. The complaint was filed by Charlie L., a minor, through his guardian ad litem, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on April 28, 2021, against Dr. Peyman Kangavari.
The case centers around an incident that occurred on October 11, 2020, when three-year-old Charlie L. was taken to PIH Health Hospital-Whittier's emergency department for abdominal pain. After several imaging tests interpreted remotely by Dr. Kangavari indicated no bowel obstruction, Charlie was discharged but returned hours later with severe complications leading to multiple surgeries and long-term health issues. The plaintiff alleges that Dr. Kangavari failed to diagnose the bowel obstruction timely, constituting medical malpractice.
Central to this case is the interpretation of California's Health and Safety Code section 1799.110, which modifies the standard of care in malpractice cases involving emergency medical services and sets stringent qualifications for expert witnesses testifying in such cases. The trial court had initially granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Kangavari after determining that his expert met these qualifications while the plaintiff's did not.
However, upon appeal, it was determined that neither party’s expert sufficiently demonstrated compliance with section 1799.110’s requirements for professional experience within an emergency department setting under emergency conditions. This ruling challenges prior interpretations of what constitutes "emergency medical coverage" and who qualifies as an expert witness under these circumstances.
The plaintiff seeks damages for negligence and claims that the misdiagnosis led to Charlie's current condition known as "short gut syndrome," requiring lifelong medical support. This reversal opens the door for further proceedings where both parties will need to reassess their strategies concerning expert testimonies.
Representing Charlie L., attorneys from Michels & Lew argued against the summary judgment citing procedural errors regarding expert qualifications under section 1799.110. On behalf of Dr. Kangavari were attorneys from Horvitz & Levy along with Dummit, Buchholz & Trapp who supported their client's adherence to standard care protocols.
The case is presided over by Judge Olivia Rosales at the Los Angeles County Superior Court under Case ID B327714 with appellate review by Justices Hoffstadt, Lui, and Ashmann-Gerst from Division Two of California's Second Appellate District.