Dr. Khaled Tawansy, a California pediatric retina specialist, has been named as a defendant in several lawsuits over the past two decades. Most involve medical malpractice allegations tied to eye surgeries and pediatric retina care, but the record also includes a federal civil rights claim brought by a prison inmate and two real estate disputes in the Los Angeles area. Outcomes range from a defense jury verdict and quiet settlements to cases still open in court or headed to arbitration.
Who Dr. Tawansy Is
Tawansy is a board-certified ophthalmologist who runs a practice associated with EyesightDoctor.com and Golden State Eye Medical Group, with clinical and surgical locations across central and southern California including Pasadena, Bakersfield, Glendale, Costa Mesa, and Los Angeles.1EyesightDoctor.com. EyesightDoctor.com He directs the Pediatric Posterior Segment Fellowship Training Program at the Children’s Retina Institute of California and has served as director of pediatric retina and ROP screening at Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena.2Law.com. Khaled Tawansy, M.D. – Expert Witness Resume His work centers on vitreoretinal surgery and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity, which is reflected in the pediatric focus of several of the lawsuits filed against him.
Medical Malpractice Lawsuits
Court records show medical malpractice suits filed against Tawansy in Los Angeles County and Kern County over roughly twenty years. Some name only Tawansy and his professional corporation; others also name Golden State Eye Medical Group, Inc. or the Raymond Renaissance Surgery Center.
Weiss v. Tawansy (2005) — Settled Quickly
One of the earliest documented cases was Corey Weiss v. Khaled Tawansy M.D. et al., filed in May 2005 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The plaintiff was a minor represented by guardian Renee Weiss, and the suit also named Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, the Regents of the University of California, and other physicians. An order approving a compromise of the disputed claim was entered in September 2005, followed by a formal dismissal that November.3PlainSite. Corey Weiss v. Khaled Tawansy M.D. et al.
Fields v. Tawansy (2016) — Defense Verdict After Jury Trial
In Karen Fields v. Khaled Tawansy, M.D., and Golden State Eye Center, a 70-year-old patient alleged that eye surgeries Tawansy performed between August and October 2013 fell below the standard of care and forced her to undergo additional procedures at USC. The case went to a nine-day jury trial in Kern County Superior Court. On September 2, 2016, the jury found Tawansy negligent by a 9-3 vote but, by the same margin, concluded his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. Jurors reportedly based the negligence finding solely on inaccuracies in the operative report for the third surgery and decided those inaccuracies did not cause harm. Fields had sought $239,000 in damages; the defense made no settlement offer, and the result was a defense verdict.4Law.com VerdictSearch. Eye Surgeries Met Standard of Care, Ophthalmologist Claimed
White v. Tawansy (2024) — Settled
Jacqueline White v. Khaled Tawansy, MD, et al. was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in March 2024. Defendants included Tawansy, his professional corporation, Golden State Eye Medical Group, and Raymond Renaissance Surgery Center, LLC. Golden State Eye Medical Group was dismissed without prejudice in October 2024. The plaintiff filed a notice of settlement in April 2025, and the entire action was dismissed with prejudice on May 5, 2025.5Trellis.Law. Jacqueline White vs. Khaled Tawansy, MD, et al.
Wu v. Tawansy (2022) — Sent to Arbitration
In November 2022, a suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of Alexander Wu, a minor, through his guardian ad litem, Di Wu. The complaint named Tawansy and San Gabriel Valley Medical Center and alleged that an undiagnosed and untreated eye disease led to the child’s blindness at five months of age.6Rulings.Law. Alexander Wu v. Khaled A. Tawansy, M.D. – Ruling
In May 2024, the court granted Tawansy’s motion to compel arbitration. The judge found a valid arbitration agreement, signed by the child’s mother, that bound the minor, rejecting arguments that Tawansy’s own lack of signature, the mother’s alleged lack of understanding, or a supposed waiver should prevent arbitration.6Rulings.Law. Alexander Wu v. Khaled A. Tawansy, M.D. – Ruling The case was stayed pending arbitration, with a post-arbitration status conference scheduled for August 5, 2026.7Docket Alarm. Alexander Wu et al. vs. Khaled A. Tawansy, M.D. et al.
Lopez (2023) and Montoya (2025) — Pending
Court records show two additional malpractice actions. Matthew Lopez, by and through his guardian ad litem, Esteban Lopez v. Khaled Aly Tawansy, M.D., et al. was filed in September 2023. Elizabeth Montoya v. Khaled Tawansy, M.D., et al. was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in May 2025. Both name Raymond Renaissance Surgery Center as a co-defendant.8UniCourt. Elizabeth Montoya vs. Khaled Tawansy, M.D., et al. Available records provide limited detail on the underlying allegations.
Pacheco v. Tawansy (2025) — Most Recent Filing
The most recently filed malpractice case is Pacheco v. Khaled A. Tawansy, M.D., et al., brought in Kern County Superior Court in September 2025. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Pacheco, is a minor represented by guardian ad litem Steven Pacheco. The suit names Tawansy, his professional corporation, and Golden State Eye Medical Group. Service on all three defendants was completed in February 2026. The plaintiff has posted jury fees, and a case management conference is scheduled for June 24, 2026.9UniCourt. Pacheco vs. Khaled A. Tawansy, M.D. et al.
Federal Civil Rights Case: Turner v. Zepp and Tawansy
Outside the malpractice context, a federal civil rights lawsuit was filed against Tawansy in the Eastern District of California. In Turner v. Zepp and Tawansy, No. 1:20-cv-00184, incarcerated plaintiff Vincent Turner, proceeding without an attorney, alleged that Tawansy and co-defendant Andrew Zepp showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs following sinus surgery, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.10GovInfo. Turner v. Zepp and Tawansy – Court Order
Turner sought to compel production of phone records between Zepp and Tawansy to prove the content of their conversations about his care. Both defendants argued the requested records either did not exist or were not in their possession, and the court denied the motions to compel, finding the records nonexistent, irrelevant to the constitutional claims, or untimely requested. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment in late 2021. As of a March 2022 court order, the case remained pending, with Turner granted additional time to file opposition briefs after gaining access to previously unavailable discovery documents.10GovInfo. Turner v. Zepp and Tawansy – Court Order
Real Estate Litigation
The Long Beach Boulevard Property
A 2017 report described Tawansy’s claim that an ex-girlfriend sold a building he owned at 3200-3220 Long Beach Boulevard without his permission or knowledge. His attorney, Doug Otto, said Tawansy had made a $100,000 down payment in May 2012 and invested an additional $800,000 improving the medical office suites inside. Tawansy received an unlawful detainer notice from the new owner and faced a court hearing on that eviction action in May 2017. Otto also appealed a conditional use permit the City of Long Beach had granted to Stars Behavioral Health Group for the property, arguing the city should not have processed the permit application while ownership remained disputed in Los Angeles Superior Court. A trial date was set for September 2017; the ultimate outcome is not reflected in available records.11Press-Telegram. Long Beach to Hear Challenges to New 24-Hour Psychiatric Urgent Care Center
Tawansy v. RIF Investments
Tawansy sued RIF Investments-3, LLC and its principals, Ron Farhadi and Joseph Ghadir, over a mixed-use development known as the Raymond Renaissance in Old Town Pasadena. He alleged he entered into an oral agreement in 2013 to purchase units adjacent to his surgery center for $2.5 million and simultaneously signed a five-year lease for the same space. He claimed the defendants fraudulently promised to sell the units to induce him to sign the lease, and he sought specific performance, fraud damages, and rescission of his personal lease guaranty. RIF countersued for breach of the personal guaranty.12vLex. Tawansy v. RIF Investments-3, LLC
The case ended badly for Tawansy at the trial court. The judge dismissed his complaint, struck his answer to RIF’s cross-complaint, and entered a default against him on that cross-complaint, imposing those sanctions for discovery misconduct, failure to file mandatory pretrial documents, and failure to appear at the final status conference. Tawansy moved to set aside the orders under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, citing mistake and excusable neglect related to medical issues, but the trial court denied the motion. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial in October 2020, leaving the dismissal and default intact.12vLex. Tawansy v. RIF Investments-3, LLC
Mention in Congressional Testimony
Tawansy’s name also came up in a September 2009 hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee. Schoolteacher Mark Gendernalik testified about his family’s struggle to obtain timely care for his daughter Sidney, who had infantile spasms. Tawansy was the retina specialist authorized by Regal Medical Group to perform a baseline retina exam to monitor for vision damage from the medication Vigabatrin. After the exam was authorized at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, according to Gendernalik, the senior medical director at Regal Medical Group called Tawansy late at night to cancel the hospital authorization and press him to move the procedure to a surgical center in Lynwood to save the medical group roughly $7,000. Tawansy told the family he had not previously performed this procedure in a surgical center and purchased equipment for it, with a vendor reviewing the equipment minutes before the procedure took place in November 2008, about seven months after it was first needed. Tawansy found no signs of retina damage. Gendernalik directed his criticism at the insurer’s bureaucracy, not at Tawansy.13House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Testimony of Mark Gendernalik