Betti v. Ahern CA4/1

Filed 8/6/25 Betti v. Ahern CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ARLENE BETTI, D084348

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- 00037717-CU-MM-CTL) MATTHEW TODD AHERN, D.O.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed. Betti & Associates and Michele M. Betti for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hegeler & Anderson, Barton H. Hegeler and Storm P. Anderson, for Defendant and Respondent. The trial court granted Matthew Todd Ahern, D.O.’s motion to dismiss Arlene Betti’s complaint against him for medical malpractice, finding the matter untimely filed. On appeal, Betti contends the trial court applied the incorrect statute of limitations. Concluding otherwise, we affirm by memorandum opinion. (See generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.)

I. In April 2019, Ahern diagnosed Betti with and treated her for vasovagal syncope. The next day, another doctor at a different hospital diagnosed Betti with a urinary tract infection and sepsis requiring hospitalization. On August 1, Betti, through her attorney, sent a letter to the hospital at which Ahern worked alleging lack of medical care and gross negligence. On September 2, 2021, Betti filed a complaint against Ahern. The trial court granted Ahern’s motion to dismiss, finding the matter time-barred. II. Betti contends the trial court erred in its judgment because it applied the wrong statute of limitations. We disagree. We review interpretations of California Rules of Court de novo. (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 81.) Likewise, we independently review an order sustaining a demurrer. (King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1050.) Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 provides an action against a health care provider based on alleged professional negligence shall be filed within one year of the plaintiff’s discovery of the injury. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California adopted Emergency Rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitations for civil causes of action. On May 29, the Judicial Council amended Rule 9 to limit tolling from April 6 through October 1, 2020. (California Courts Newsroom, Judicial Council Revises Emergency Rule on Statutes of Limitations in Civil Cases, <http://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/judicial-council-revises-emergency-rule- statutes-limitations-civil-cases> [as of August 6, 2025], archived at <https://perma.cc/FSR4-K6MB >.) Because the trial court relied on these