In Carillo v. County of Santa Clara, published March 13, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 4 affirmed dismissal of a medical malpractice suit after demurrer was sustained. The plaintiff alleged that in December 17, 2017, when he was in the custody of the defendant county’s department of corrections, his right foot was amputated due to purported mistreatment of a blister. He alleged that he first suspected wrongdoing in April 2018. He presented a claim to the county in June 2018. It was rejected July 19, 2019. He filed his lawsuit on January 18, 2019, one day shy of six months after the rejection. The county demurred, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 applied; and that there was no question a reasonable person having his foot amputated under these circumstances would necessarily be on notice something was wrong. It contended that the plaintiff had to meet both the section 340.5 statute of limitations and the statute of limitations under Government Code section 945.6, requiring that suit be filed within six months after claim denial. Relying on Roberts v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 474, the trial court sustained the demurrer, holding that the Government Claims Act’s filing deadlines and limitations periods do not supplant the Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 limitations periods for malpractice actions against public entity health care providers. The court further held that the cause of action accrued at the time of the amputation, holding the complaint allegations established the plaintiff suspected wrongdoing at that time. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court misread Roberts.
The appellate court disagreed with the plaintiff. Roberts held that the statute of limitations barring suit more than three years after injury was the outer limit by which a lawsuit must be filed against a public health care provider. The Roberts court had no need to consider or decide whether MICRA’s one-year statute of limitations applied to public entity defendants. Roberts also states that for claims against a public entity where both MICRA and section 945.6 apply, the goal is to harmonize the law and avoid interpretations that ignore one statute. Interpreting Roberts as plaintiff urges would require ignoring MICRA’s one-year limitation. The plaintiff was required to meet the deadlines set forth in both statutes. The trial court also properly ruled that based on the plaintiff’s allegations there was no delayed discovery. Although the plaintiff alleged later discovery, he failed to plead specific facts to show he could not have earlier made this discovery, even with reasonable diligence. The appellate court also agreed with the trial court that a reasonable person would have been on notice when his foot was amputated that something was wrong, and would have acted diligently to discover the cause of his injury at that time.
Note: This case's holding conflicts with the holding in Anson v. County of Merced (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1195, 1202, that the six-month statute of limitations in the Government Claims Act controls over the one-year statute of limitations in MICRA.
Comments