Nichols v. Alghannam (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 726
Plaintiffs, the adult children of Sandra Robinson, sued Dr. Muhammad Alghannam, who managed Robinson’s implanted fentanyl pump, and others for professional negligence and elder abuse after Robinson’s death from a fentanyl overdose. Plaintiffs alleged that, after surgery for an unrelated health issue, Robinson’s surgeon failed to coordinate with Dr. Alghannam about her pump, ordered additional fentanyl without consulting Dr. Alghannam, and failed to act on observable changes in Robinson’s mental status. Plaintiffs further alleged the surgeon, knowing Dr. Alghannam lacked valid staff privileges at the hospital, “asked him to come in any way,” to conceal his failure to manage Robinson’s pain pump. Plaintiffs filed several iterations of their complaint, and first named Dr. Alghannam as a defendant nearly five years after Robinson’s death. Dr. Alghannam demurred to plaintiffs’ operative complaint on statute of limitations grounds and for failure to plead elder abuse. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that plaintiffs’ action was barred by MICRA’s three-year limitations period because plaintiffs’ action was for “professional negligence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.) Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Alghannam’s postsurgical treatment of Robinson was not “professional negligence” because it fell outside the scope of what the hospital was licensed to do. Relying on Waters v. Bourhis (1985) 40 Cal.3d 424 and Lopez v. Ledesma (2022) 12 Cal.5th 848, the court disagreed and held that the statutory exclusion for services rendered “within any restriction imposed by” a hospital applies only when a provider acts outside the licensed scope of practice—not merely when violating hospital rules or professional standards. (An example would be a psychologist performing heart surgery.) Because plaintiffs’ complaint did not specify what staff privileges Dr. Alghannam lacked, or how he violated the hospital’s restrictions, plaintiffs failed to plead that Dr. Alghannam rendered services within “ ‘ “a limitation on the scope of a provider’s practice beyond simply the obligation to adhere to standards of professional conduct.” ’ ” The court further held the statute of limitations was not tolled because the complaint failed to allege that Dr. Alghannam engaged in affirmative acts of concealment. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that their claims against Dr. Alghannam were timely because they related back to their original complaint. Even assuming a relation back, plaintiffs failed to serve Dr. Alghannam within three years of filing their original complaint. Finally, the court affirmed dismissal of the elder abuse claim, finding the complaint failed to allege a custodial relationship and that Dr. Alghannam acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice.
