Filed 3/13/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR EMILIO CARRILLO, B322810 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 19CV43225) v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Mark H. Pierce, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Bobby Lau and Babach “Bobby” Lau for Plaintiff and Appellant. James R. Williams, County Counsel (Santa Clara) and Kim H. Hara, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Emilio Carrillo appeals from a judgment of dismissal of his medical negligence claim against respondent County of Santa Clara after the trial court sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend on statute of limitations grounds. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Carrillo Sues the County for Medical Negligence On January 18, 2019, Carrillo sued the County and Does 1 through 50 for medical negligence and battery. Carrillo withdrew the battery claim when he filed a first amended complaint on June 7, 2019. In the FAC, Carrillo alleged that, in December 2017, while in the custody of the County’s Department of Corrections, he developed a “large blister on the bottom of his right foot.” A County nurse identified in the complaint as Doe 1 “popped” the blister over his objection while he was restrained, resulting in an “open and exposed wound.” Within three days, the wound became infected, and Carrillo developed gangrene, became febrile, and went into septic shock. He was admitted to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, where his right foot was amputated on December 20, 2017, “[d]ue to the damage from the infection and its related symptoms.” In April 2018, he visited the Mexican Consulate in San Jose to obtain guidance on immigration matters. While 2 there, “the subject of his right foot amputation came up” and Carrillo “‘became informed and on that basis believed’” that the nurse’s treatment of his blister caused the gangrene and septic shock, which in turn led to the amputation. On June 18, 2018, he presented a “Notice of Claim” to the County for medical negligence, which the County rejected on July 19, 2018. Carrillo filed his initial complaint on January 18, 2019, one day shy of six months after that rejection. B. The County Demurs On July 12, 2019, the County demurred to Carrillo’s FAC. The County argued that Carrillo’s medical negligence claim was time-barred, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 (MICRA),1 which provides that a plaintiff must file suit “within three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.) Because Carrillo’s foot was amputated on December 20, 2017, the County argued he was required to file suit no later than December 20, 2018, making his January 18, 2019, complaint untimely. The County characterized as irrelevant Carrillo’s assertion that he did not begin to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals