This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Medical
Malpractice

Susan Reale v. Bay West Family Health Care, Sacha Niemi, M.D.

Published: Jan. 22, 2021 | Result Date: Dec. 16, 2020 | Filing Date: Oct. 20, 2015 |

Case number: CGC-15-548532 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Ethan P. Schulman

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven J. Weinberg
(McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP)


Defendant

Robert T. Lynch
(Law Offices of Madden & Lynch PC)

Elisabeth A. Madden
(Law Offices of Madden & Lynch PC)

Frances B. Bruce
(Law Offices of Madden & Lynch PC)


Facts

Plaintiff Susan Reale filed suit against Defendants Bay West Family Health Care and Sacha Niemi, M.D., and asserted causes of action for medical malpractice based on the failure to properly diagnose and treat her kidney disease and hypertension.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended defendants' failure to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff's Stage 4 kidney disease and hypertension constituted medical malpractice. Plaintiff contended Defendants never informed nor diagnosed Plaintiff's kidney disease after observing her abnormal test results. Thus, Plaintiff contended, as a result of the negligence, Plaintiff's chronic kidney disease progressed more rapidly, which necessitated treatment interventions sooner than otherwise required.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied Plaintiff's contentions and denied any wrongdoing. Defendant contended Plaintiff was previously diagnosed with stage 4 kidney disease. Defendants moved to have the case dismissed based on the applicable one-year statute of limitations that had already expired.

Result

Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants because the claim was barred by the statute of limitations since Plaintiff filed more than one year after the alleged incident.


#136394

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390