Kumari v. Hospital Com. for Livermore etc.
A148351
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- On Oct. 29, 2013, Veena Kumari fell in a ValleyCare hospital corridor after a C-section and fractured her right shoulder; she sought treatment and lost work/time with her infant.
- On Feb. 19, 2014 Kumari sent ValleyCare a detailed demand letter labeling the incident "medical negligence," describing events/injuries, requesting $240,000, asking ValleyCare to preserve evidence, and saying she would “move to the court” if unpaid in 20 days.
- ValleyCare’s insurer investigated after receiving the letter, requested authorizations, then denied the claim in Aug. 2014.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel later sent a formal Section 364 notice on Oct. 27, 2014; plaintiffs filed suit on Jan. 23, 2015, more than one year after the Oct. 29, 2013 injury.
- The trial court granted ValleyCare summary judgment, holding Kumari’s Feb. 2014 letter constituted a Section 364 notice sent more than 90 days before the statute expired and therefore did not toll the one-year limitations period; the complaint was time‑barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kumari’s Feb. 19, 2014 letter was a notice of intent to sue under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 364 | Kumari: the letter was an informal attempt to resolve matters and she did not intend it as a §364 notice; she was unaware of §364 | ValleyCare: the letter disclosed legal basis, injuries, damages, demanded money, threatened court — it satisfied §364 | The letter met §364’s content and purpose requirements and was a notice of intent to sue |
| Whether the author’s subjective intent (unawareness of §364) matters for §364 analysis | Kumari: her subjective intent/ignorance of statute shows it was not a §364 notice | ValleyCare: statute focuses on information imparted to provider, not claimant’s state of mind | Court: subjective intent is irrelevant; inquiry is what the letter communicated to a reasonable recipient |
| Whether an early §364 notice tolls the limitations period | Plaintiffs: later counsel notice tolled limitations because it was within 90 days of expiration | ValleyCare: earlier notice was effective; only an original notice served within the last 90 days tolled under §364(d) | Court: an early notice (sent >90 days before expiration) does not toll; the later notice was surplusage |
| Whether the complaint was timely | Plaintiffs: argued the complaint was timely because a later §364 notice tolled the statute or plaintiff discovered injury later | ValleyCare: complaint filed after one-year limitations expired and was untimely | Court: complaint was time-barred; summary judgment for ValleyCare affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Young, 53 Cal.3d 315 (Cal. 1991) (interpreting §364 tolling rule and purposes of the 90‑day notice)
- Jones v. Catholic Healthcare West, 147 Cal.App.4th 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (discussing §364 notice issues and service; relevance limited where not addressing subjective intent)
- Bennett v. Shahhal, 75 Cal.App.4th 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (holding notice satisfied §364 where it alleged negligence, injuries, and intent to sue)
- Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist., 49 Cal.3d 699 (Cal. 1989) (state of mind irrelevant; focus on what notice disclosed to entity)
- Edwards v. Superior Court, 93 Cal.App.4th 172 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (example of §364 notice satisfying statutory content requirements)
- Anson v. County of Merced, 202 Cal.App.3d 1195 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (discussing §364’s purpose to permit settlement negotiations)
- Wurts v. County of Fresno, 44 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (distinguishing different notice statutes; does not require subjective intent for §364 coverage)