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.

Personal Injury
Medical Malpractice
Statute of Limitations

Edmund Mizia v. John T. Quigley, West Coast Orthopedic Medical Group

Published: Sep. 3, 2005 | Result Date: Jul. 28, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GC033611 Verdict –  $0

Judge

C. Edward Simpson Jr.

Court

L.A. Superior Pasadena


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James G. O'Callahan
(Girardi & Keese)


Defendant

Raymond L. Blessey
(Reback, McAndrews & Blessey LLP)


Facts

On Aug. 9 , 2002, defendant Dr. John Quigley, performed a left ankle fusion surgery on plaintiff Edmund Mizia. During the plaintiff's post-operative hospital stay, Dr. Quigley told him there had been an injury either to the peroneal nerve or the extensor tendon of his left big toe. After being discharged from the hospital, the plaintiff noticed that his left big toe was dropping. On Oct. 7, 2002, Dr. Quigley advised the plaintiff that he needed exploratory surgery for his toe problem. On Oct. 30, 2002, after experiencing persistent weakness in his toe extensors, the plaintiff underwent an electromyography test (EMG). The EMG indicated a severe neurapraxia or axonotmesis of the peroneal nerve. On Dec. 12, 2002, the plaintiff requested that a copy of the Aug. 9 surgery report be sent to his primary care physician. Around this time, he began receiving attorney referrals. Dr. Quigley treated the plaintiff until July 9, 2003. In July 2003, the plaintiff began treatment with another doctor, who told him that his injury was permanent. The plaintiff filed a complaint against Dr. Quigley on April 5, 2004, 20 months after Dr. Quigley performed the left ankle fusion surgery on the plaintiff. The trial was bifurcated and the threshold issue on whether the case was time-barred by the statute of limitations was tried before a jury. The plaintiff contended that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until July 2003, when he stopped treating with Dr. Quigley. The defendant contended that the statute of limitations began to run no later than December 2002.

Result

The jury rendered a defense verdict, finding that the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations (California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 340.5).

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0 (statute of limitations)

Length

two days


#92228

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

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