On 02/16/2016 CHRISTOPHER JONES filed a Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice lawsuit against ARASH FARAHANCHI D O. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Pomona Courthouse South
Los Angeles, California
PETER A. HERNANDEZ
DUKES, ROBERT A.
FARAHANCHI ARASH D.O.
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
MARINELLI DERRICK M.D.
FARAHANCHI D.O. ARASH
MARINELLI M.D. DERRICK
DENOVE JOHN F. ESQ.
DENOVE JOHN F.
MARTIN SIDNEY J.
SCHMID & VOILES
CARROLL RICHARD D. ESQ.
1/24/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment
1/25/2018: Notice of Status Conference and Order
7/11/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
9/27/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
2/21/2019: Minute Order
4/30/2019: Motion in Limine
4/30/2019: Motion in Limine
4/30/2019: Motion in Limine
6/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
6/29/2017: ANSWER TO COTWLAINT
7/19/2017: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ALICIA S. CURRAN
7/27/2017: NOTICE OF TAKING DERRICK MARINELLI, M.D.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OFF CALENDAR
at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (.) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Unopposed Ex Parte Application to Cont...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order ([PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF?S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES); Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES); Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (PLAINTIFF?S UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE AND RELATED DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ALICIA S. CURRAN); Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Joinder (Name Extension) (NOTICE OF JOINDER OF DEF TO CO-DEF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 10); Filed by D.O., ARASH FARAHANCHI (Defendant); Arash, D.O. Farahanchi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion in Limine ( MIL No 8 Source Materials); Filed by D.O., ARASH FARAHANCHI (Defendant); Arash, D.O. Farahanchi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion in Limine (MIL No 3 Evidence Not Disclosed); Filed by D.O., ARASH FARAHANCHI (Defendant); Arash, D.O. Farahanchi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion in Limine ( MIL No 11 Reasonable Value); Filed by D.O., ARASH FARAHANCHI (Defendant); Arash, D.O. Farahanchi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PLAINTIFF DEMANDS JURY TRIALRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Christopher Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC610432 Hearing Date: March 9, 2021 Dept: O
Defendant Arash Farahanchi, D.O.’s motion for summary judgment, with joinder by Defendant Derrick Marinelli, M.D., is DENIED.
On December 7, 2020, Defendant Arash Farahanchi, D.O. (“Defendant Farahanchi”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the single and only cause of action for medical negligence in Plaintiff Christopher Jones’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint. Defendant Derrick Marinelli, M.D. (“Defendant Marinelli”) had previously filed his own separate Motion for Summary Judgment on the single and only cause of action for medical negligence in Plaintiff’s Complaint on March 11, 2018, but that motion was then taken off calendar a day before the court held the hearing. Defendant Marinelli now joins Defendant Farahanchi in this present motion and has filed papers in support of the joinder. Plaintiff filed his Opposition on February 23, 2021, and Defendants filed their Replies on March 4, 2021. The Court held a hearing on March 9, 2021 and took the matter under submission. The Court hereby finds as follows:
The present case involves a claim of medical negligence by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Farahanchi and Marinelli (collectively “Defendants”) were negligent in treating his prostatitis by improperly prescribing a medicine that caused him side effects. Defendants were the treating physicians of Plaintiff, whom Defendants saw for groin pain. Both Defendants diagnosed Plaintiff with prostatitis and prescribed the antibiotic Ciprofloxacin (“Cipro”) to Plaintiff as treatment. However, Plaintiff then suffered from a burning sensation and stinging, along with soreness, pain, and weakness in his legs, hips, hamstrings, and ankle.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff is unable to show a triable issue of fact that the statute of limitations ran by the filing of the Compliant on February 16, 2016.
Legal Standard on Motion for Summary Judgment
A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) “A defendant can satisfy its burden by presenting evidence that negates an element of the cause of action or evidence that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably expect to obtain evidence needed to support an element of the cause of action.” (Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corp. of New York (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 175, 186.) The court must liberally construe evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)
Legal Standard on Statute of Limitations
A claim for medical negligence has a statute of limitations of either 3 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. (CCP § 340.5.) Thus, the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action begins to run once a plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry, or said plaintiff has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his investigation. (Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896-97.)
However, the delayed discovery rule provides that the accrual date of a cause of action is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of her injury and its negligent cause. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal. App. 4th 292, 317.) Under the discovery rule, suspicion of one or more of the elements of a cause of action coupled with knowledge of any remaining elements will generally trigger the statute of limitations period. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807.) There are no hard and fast rules for determining what facts or circumstances will compel inquiry by the injured party and render him chargeable with knowledge. (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal. App. 4th 1308, 1320.) It is a question for the trier of fact. (Ibid.) However, whenever reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion from the evidence, the question becomes one of law. (Ibid.)
Defendants contend that Plaintiff is unable to show a triable issue of fact that the statute of limitations has run in this action. This was raised as the Second Affirmative Defense in Defendant Marinelli’s Answer, and the Fifth Affirmative Defense in Defendant Farahanchi’s Answer. Defendants’ point to facts that show Plaintiff discovered or should have discovered his injury by November 2014. Defendants contend that Plaintiff discovered his injury as early as October 16, 2014 and attributed it to the use of Cipro. (Defendant’s Separate Statement [“DSS”] 3; Joinder Separate Statement [“JSS”] 3.) Plaintiff then stopped taking Cipro on November 1, 2014. (DSS 4; JSS 4.) Plaintiff admitted that he believed the medication was causing his soreness and pain. (DSS 3; JSS 3.)
Thus, Defendants have met their burden, and the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show a dispute of fact as to when he discovered his injuries.
Plaintiff attempts to meet his burden by showing that there is a dispute of fact as to when he discovered his injuries were related to Cipro after seeking another doctor’s opinion. Plaintiff went to see Christopher Celio, M.D. (“Dr. Celio”) on November 6, 2014 and November 24, 2014. (PSS 8.) It was only during these visits that Dr. Celio informed Plaintiff that his symptoms were possibly related to Cipro. (PSS 9.) Dr. Celio told Plaintiff that if it was a side effect of Cipro, the symptoms would go away on their own because Plaintiff had already stopped taking the medication. (PSS 10.) Dr. Celio then referred Plaintiff to see Andrew Concoff, M.D. (“Dr. Concoff”), a rheumatologist. (PSS 11; see Declaration of Alicia S. Curran, ¶ , Ex. 1.) It was only then that Plaintiff learned from Dr. Concoff that the pain he suffered from were not just side effects of the Cipro, but that the Cipro had actually caused damage to Plaintiff’s body. (PSS 20.) Thus, this revelation was not made to Plaintiff until March 12, 2015 the earliest, which is the first date he saw Dr. Concoff. (PSS 15.)
While Defendants counter Plaintiff’s facts by showing that Plaintiff admits in his own Opposition that he asked Defendant Marinelli about his symptoms and whether they could be a side effect of Cipro (PSS 5), and that Plaintiff also told Defendant Marinelli that he had looked up the side effects on the internet (PSS 6), the court must still find that a dispute of fact exists despite these admissions. Plaintiff’s Opposition clearly shows that while Plaintiff may have suspected that the Cipro had caused him bad side effects, he may not have been aware of its long-term effects until March 12, 2015. Particularly, Plaintiff stated that Dr. Celio had told him that the symptoms should disappear on their own because he stopped taking the medication. (PSS 10.) When the symptoms persisted, Plaintiff sought Dr. Concoff’s opinion. (PSS 13.) Plaintiff attempts to only frame the harm in their papers as the initial onset of the side effects, but not the long-term damage that Cipro may have caused Plaintiff. This narrowing of Plaintiff’s injury mischaracterizes Plaintiff’s case, which is to obtain some kind of compensation for the long-term effects of the medication Plaintiff now suffers from and not just the side effects that he was told--either implicitly or explicitly by medical experts--were merely temporary. While the court has some concern as to why Plaintiff was not able to see Dr. Concoff earlier than March 2015 after getting a referral from Dr. Celio, it is not for the court to decide when along the continuum Plaintiff should have reasonably suspected Cipro as the culprit of his long-term pain. Such an issue is for the jury to decide.
Motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.
Because there still exists triable facts, motion for summary judgment is also DENIED.
 The court presumes Dr. Celio made the referral some time in November 6, 2014 though it is unclear from either Plaintiff or Defendants when this referral actually occurred. It is also unclear whether Plaintiff was able to see Dr. Concoff sooner but unreasonably delayed in making his appointment. But given that the Court is to interpret facts most favorably in the party opposing this Motion, the court must assume-- solely for the purposes of this MSJ--that March 2015 was the earliest that Plaintiff was able to make his appointment with Dr. Concoff. Whether that is true may be litigated by the parties at trial.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases