Altraide v. Eyolfson CA3
C093549
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 8, 2022Background
- Decedent treated at Kaiser for high PSA and diagnosed with prostate cancer in Nov 2012; treatment included Lupron injections, radiation (gold seeds), and Effexor for hot flashes.
- Decedent traveled to Nigeria in 2013, reportedly received additional Lupron injections there, developed worsening symptoms, and died in May 2015 (primary cause cardiorespiratory failure; secondary bone marrow suppression).
- Stella (wife) served a written notice of intent to sue Kaiser in March 2016 alleging lack of informed consent and incompetent care; she and family pursued arbitration and later civil litigation.
- Operative complaint (Aug 2019) alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims against treating physicians (Drs. Buchanan and Eyolfson) and others.
- Trial court sustained many demurrers, struck punitive damages, and later granted summary judgment for Drs. Buchanan and Eyolfson, ruling Stella’s fraud-based claims were, in substance, medical malpractice or wrongful death claims and therefore time‑barred.
- This appeal challenges the summary judgments; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stella's fraud/ concealment claims are governed by MICRA §340.5 (one‑year rule) or by longer fraud/wrongful death statutes | Stella: claims are fraud/breach claims (not malpractice) so longer limitations apply | Doctors: claims arise from professional services (failure to disclose/informed consent) and are subject to MICRA one‑year rule or wrongful‑death two‑year rule | Held: Claims are grounded in medical professional negligence and/or wrongful death and are time‑barred; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether delayed discovery tolls the limitations period | Stella: did not reasonably suspect fraud until July 2016 (after continued reassurances) so claims timely | Doctors: Stella had notice/suspicion by March 2016 (and at latest July 2016), so one‑year period expired before filing | Held: No delayed‑discovery tolling; plaintiff had adequate suspicion earlier and failed to sue within limitations |
| Whether claims could be recast as medical battery/informed consent to avoid MICRA limits | Stella: lack of informed consent/possible battery theory | Doctors: allegations describe failure to disclose (negligence), not an unconsented‑to, substantially different procedure (battery) | Held: Allegations fit negligence/informed‑consent malpractice, not battery; MICRA limits apply |
| Whether trial court abused discretion on evidentiary rulings, continuance for discovery, or judicial disqualification | Stella: trial court excluded parts of her expert declaration, denied continuance, and judge later recused | Doctors: any evidentiary rulings were harmless; no showing of essential missing evidence; disqualification raised late and unsubstantiated | Held: No reversible error — evidentiary rulings harmless, continuance not shown necessary, disqualification argument forfeited or unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 (Cal. 1972) (physician duty to disclose risks relevant to informed consent)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) (discovery rule: suspicion of wrongdoing, not full knowledge, triggers limitations)
- Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 1992) (MICRA can apply to intentional tort labels when gravamen is professional negligence)
- Graham v. Hansen, 128 Cal.App.3d 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (delayed‑discovery standards and when question becomes one of law)
- Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc., 230 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (analysis of MICRA’s scope and application)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (wrongful‑death claims generally accrue at death)