GARABET

GARABET v. Superior Court

Good Law
151 Cal. App. 4th 1538·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 989·60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 2007B195944California5,168 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

INTRODUCTION

This is an action for medical malpractice brought by real party in interest and plaintiff Ara Boghosian (Boghosian) against petitioners and defendants Antoine Garabet, M.D., and Laser Eye Medical Office, collectively defendants. Boghosian alleges defendants performed LASIK surgery on him with knowledge that he was not an appropriate candidate for the medical procedure.

Defendants have requested a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying their summary judgment motions and instead to grant the motions. Defendants contend the statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5) for Boghosian’s lawsuit expired before the lawsuit was filed. We conclude that defendants’ argument is persuasive and hold, as a matter of law, that there are no triable issues of fact. Thus, we grant the petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Underlying facts

On July 21, 1998, Boghosian visited defendants in the hopes of correcting his vision such that he would no longer require corrective lenses. Boghosian underwent a thorough eye examination. Defendants informed him that he suffered from an astigmatism and myopia and was a good candidate for LASIK…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.