Yahiaoui v. Pelayo CA4/3

── Yahiaoui v. Pelayo CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Yahiaoui v. Pelayo CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE YOUCEF YAHIAOUI, Plaintiff and Appellant, G065272 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01338895) ARTURO PELAYO, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly A. Knill, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Michael Tsivyan and Michael Tsivyan for Plaintiff and Appellant. R.J. Ryan Law, Richard J. Ryan and Marshall Shepardson for Defendant and Respondent. * * *  Plaintiff Youcef Yahiaoui appeals following summary judgment in this medical malpractice case against emergency room physician defendant Arturo Pelayo. He claims the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s expert, in his declaration opposing the motion, failed to state several critical facts, including whether he believed Pelayo violated the standard of care. He also complains several of his evidentiary objections should have been sustained. We disagree as to the evidentiary objections and conclude that the failure to create a triable issue as to breach of the standard of care was fatal to Yahiaoui’s opposition to summary judgment. The motion was properly granted and the judgment is affirmed. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pelayo is a board certified emergency medicine physician licensed to practice in California. On October 5, 2022, Pelayo was working in the emergency department at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital and Medical Center (FVRH). Yahiaoui was brought into the emergency department by paramedics, admitted at or around 11:53 a.m. At approximately 11:59 a.m., Pelayo saw Yahiaoui. He told “Pelayo that he had severe pain in the anal canal, that it started when Plaintiff was attempting to defecate, that he felt a solid object stuck in the rectal orifice . . . .” and the pain was so great he felt faint. Pelayo’s clinical diagnosis was abdominal pain and syncope (fainting). At or around 12:17 p.m., Yahiaoui underwent a CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis. At 12:27 p.m., an X-ray of Yahiaoui’s chest was performed. Blood work and an EKG were also performed. According to Yahiaoui, these tests were performed due to Pelayo’s misapprehension that Yahiaoui was suffering abdominal pain when he was 2 only experiencing rectal pain. When he clarified this to Pelayo, Pelayo stated these were “checkups” to rule out other conditions. None of the tests showed any acute findings. Pelayo was prepared to discharge Yahiaoui, but Yahiaoui “refused to go home.” He complained Pelayo had “never checked the anal canal where the problem actually was” and stated that he “still had severe physical pain in the anal canal.” “At or around 1:50 p.m., Dr. Pelayo performed a digital rectal exam and removed a foreign body from [Yahiaoui].” Yahiaoui claimed the object removed was a chicken bone, but we were unable to find that information on the cited page of his medical records. Nonetheless, Pelayo does not dispute the foreign