Filosa v. Alagappan, A156412 (Dec. 21, 2020)
Plaintiff sued for medical malpractice in 2016, alleging defendants negligently failed to diagnose a brain tumor when he underwent an MRI six years earlier in 2010. Following the MRI, plaintiff’s headaches and symptoms continued to worsen and another MRI examination in December, 2014 showed a tumor in his brain. A re-review of the original 2010 MRI showed a subtle mass which had increased in size by 2014.
In November, 2015, less than one year after his 2014 MRI, plaintiff served notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 364 of his intent to bring an action against defendants. Plaintiff then filed his lawsuit on March 3, 2016. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint was barred by the maximum three-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5.
The Court of Appeal reversed. As to the three-year statute of limitations, the court concluded that a fact finder could reasonably conclude that plaintiff’s lawsuit was timely filed because plaintiff’s symptoms after the failure to diagnose in 2010 were not the manifestation of “appreciable harm” triggering commencement of the three-year limitations period, but merely the continuation of his previous condition. The court held that the three year limitations period did not begin to run until 2014, when plaintiff suffered appreciable harm from the previously undiagnosed brain tumor. The court further held that the one-year limitations period—which commences when a plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its negligent cause—had not run out because plaintiff filed within one year (plus the 90 day extension under Code Civ. Proc., § 364, subd. (d)) of the discovery of the appreciable harm that occurred in 2014 and its negligent cause.
