Case Number: BC549556 Hearing Date: May 09, 2016 Dept: 91

The unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, Yung R. Cho, M.D., filed on December 4, 2015, is GRANTED.

Defendant has established he is entitled to judgment on the complaint based on the undisputed material facts proffered which establish that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the 1-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5

In a medical malpractice action, the statute of limitations expires one year after the date of injury or the date when Plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury, whichever is first and no more than three years from the injury. Cal Code Civ Proc § 340.5.

Plaintiff’s suspicion of negligence is sufficient to commence the running of the statute of limitations. Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 1290, 1300. The statute begins to run if the Plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry, “or has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his investigation.” Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 101.

There is no dispute that Plaintiff suspected something was wrong with her wrist in mid-March 2013. UF 21. She consulted with an attorney about her injury immediately following her visit with Dr. Cho on 3/21/13. UF 11, 22.

This infers that Plaintiff had sufficient information to put a person in “inquiry notice” and to commence the running of the statute of limitations. Therefore, Plaintiff had until 3/21/14 to file her complaint. Plaintiff filed her complaint on 6/23/14. It is barred by the one year statute of limitations.

Ordinarily, the statute of limitations is extended 90 days if the Plaintiff serves her 90-day notice of intent to commence an action within 90 days of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 364(d).

The 1-year statute expired on 3/21/14. Plaintiff served her notice of intent on 9/11/13, which is not within the 90-day period before the statute of limitations expired. Thus, she is not entitled to a 90-day extension.

The motion is also GRANTED because there is no dispute that Defendant complied with the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to Plaintiff’s injury. Proof of the standard of care depends on expert testimony. There is no competing declaration provided by Plaintiffs to dispute that Defendant complied with the standard of care or that Defendant’s conduct did not cause injury. Landeros v. Flood (1976) 17 Cal.3d 399, 410. Proof of causation also requires medical expert testimony. Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402.

There is no dispute that Defendant did not breach the standard of care based on the Declaration of Christopher Wills, M.D., Defendant’s expert. UF 16-19.

There is no dispute that no negligence on behalf of Dr. Cho caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries or damage. UF 20.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.