The Case

• Case Name: Woldum v. East Los Angeles Dialysis Center, et al.
• Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 23STCV25063
• Date of Verdict or Judgment: Monday, February 09, 2026
• Date Action was Filed: Sunday, October 13, 2024
• Type of Case: Negligence, Premises Liability
• Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Michael J. O'Gara
• Plaintiffs:
  Jerry Woldum, 77
• Defendants:
  East Los Angeles Dialysis Center (the hirer of Mr. Woldum's employer and occupier of subject property)
  UWW, LLC (property owner who also owned the Dialysis Center)
  Mohamed El-Shahawy, M.D. (partial owner of both property and clinic and medical director of the dialysis clinic)
• Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

• Gross Verdict or Award: $1,617,350
• Net Verdict or Award: $1,051,277.50 after reduction for contributory negligence.
• Contributory/Comparative Negligence: 35% to plaintiff
• Economic Damages: Past medical: $217,000Past lost earnings: $54,350
• Future loss of earnings: $226,000
• Future medical: $120,000
• Non-Economic Damages: Past: $500,000
• Future: $500,000
• Trial or Arbitration Time: 10 days
• Jury Deliberation Time: 2 days (about 4 hours total)

The Attorneys

• Attorney for the Plaintiff:

  Kirtland & Packard, LLP by Michael Louis Kelly and Simon T. Sverdlov, Redondo Beach.

• Attorney for the Defendant:

  Freeman, Mathis & Gary by Lizel Cerezo and Kelly Haas, Los Angeles. (For all defendants.)

The Experts

• Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

  Gregory Tchejeyan, M.D., orthopedic surgery.

  James Jens Black, M.D., plastic and reconstructive surgery.

• Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
• Ronald S. Kvitne, M.D., orthopedic surgery.
• Alexander Marmureanu, M.D., cardiothoracic surgery.
• Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):

  Brad P. Avrit, P.E., civil engineering and forensic investigation.

  Niree Kodaverdian, Ph.D., economics.

• Defendant's Technical Expert(s):

  Darryl Thibault, security services.

  Peter O. Patterson, construction.

  Eric Volk, economics.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background: On June 12th, 2023, plaintiff, a security guard for Allied Nationwide, arrived at his post at the East Los Angeles Dialysis Center at approximately 12:30 a.m.  As part of his duties, he went to open the center’s parking lot gate before the center opened to permit dialysis patients and staff entry onto the premises. On this particular morning, the gate was derailed, with its wheel being stuck between the gate's rail and the adjacent cement wall, preventing the gate from opening.
• After plaintiff could not free the gate with his hands, he went to his personal vehicle where he retrieved a tire iron and returned to the gate. Plaintiff then wedged the tire iron under the gate and freed its wheel, but the motion overcorrected the wheel, making the wheel jump to the other side of the gate’s rail. When plaintiff attempted to lift the gate back into its proper place, it fell, crushing plaintiff’s right leg and pinning him on the ground.
• Plaintiff's Contentions: That on the incident date, plaintiff was simply attempting to open the gate as he was previously instructed to do. Since April of 2022 his job had been to open a broken gate; that the gate was in the same condition during the incident as it was when he was first assigned to the center and instructed on opening the gate. Plaintiff contended that the defendants retained some control over the performance of plaintiff's job, including opening of the parking lot gate as the center made opening the gate part of plaintiff's duties, center staff directed his work during his shift, plaintiff did not take orders or communicate with his employer during working hours, and the center did not delegate maintenance of the gate, reserving control of the same to itself per contract with plaintiff's employer.
• That all defendants had notice of the defects with the gate, which caused it to malfunction as plaintiff had reported the same as early as April 2022 to several employees of the center as well as to his own supervisor who documented plaintiff's reporting.
• Defendant's Contentions: Defendants contended that they had no notice of the subject gate's condition, and that plaintiff never made reports about the gate. They further contended that plaintiff was 100% at fault, arguing that plaintiff went beyond the scope of his employment as he was instructed by his employer at the time of the incident to not touch the gate, but chose to retrieve a tire iron for use on the gate.
• Defendants contended plaintiff did not require further surgery, and that his vascular issues and associated swelling were age related.
• Defendants contended they did not retain control over plaintiff's work as they were not plaintiff's employer and no employee of defendants was on the premises when the Incident occurred.

Injuries and Other Damages

• Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff: Plaintiff suffered a bimalleolar fracture to his right ankle requiring open reduction, internal fixation with several screws and plate.
• The wound resulting from the crush injury subsequently became infected requiring several surgical procedures ending in an eventual gastrocnemius flap to cover the area removed due to infection. Plaintiff also received a hardware removal of the initial screws/plate. He was unable to continue working until his planned age of retirement (May 25th, 2028) and requires a gastrocnemius denervation/origin release surgery to alleviate the pain experienced as a result of the calf muscle rotation.

Special Damages

• Special Damages Claimed - Past Medical: $161,869
• Special Damages Claimed - Future Medical: $124,529
• Special Damages Claimed - Past Lost Earnings: $54,816
• Special Damages Claimed - Future Lost Earnings: $145,410

Demands and Offers

• Plaintiff §998 Demand: $2,199,999
• Plaintiff Final Demand before Trial: $2,199,999
• Defendant §998 Offer: $500,00.01
• Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $500,00.01