Whang v. Dr. Midas Beverly Hills CA2/5

Filed 1/8/15 Whang v. Dr. Midas Beverly Hills CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

KYUNG JA WHANG, B254316

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC482619) v.

DR. MIDAS BEVERLY HILLS, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Samantha Jessner, Judge. Reversed. Law Offices of Baird A. Brown, PC, Baird A. Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant. Green & Hall, Robert L. Green and Jonathan M. Slipp for Defendant and Respondent.

********

Plaintiff Kyung Ja Whang (plaintiff) sued defendant Dr. Midas Medical Group, Inc. (defendant) for medical malpractice one year and five days after she underwent an outpatient procedure consisting of an injection in her nose. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant, ruling that plaintiff knew or should have known within four days of the procedure that the pain, swelling and discoloration which she experienced following the injection was caused by defendant’s negligence. We do not agree, and so reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On January 5, 2011, defendant performed a minor cosmetic procedure – an injection of Radiesse to the tip of the nose – on plaintiff at its offices. Prior to the procedure, plaintiff was informed that she might experience pain, redness and swelling for approximately two weeks following the procedure. Plaintiff complained of pain immediately after receiving the injection, and observed purple bruises and a swollen nose. She continued to experience extreme pain and an abnormal-looking nose throughout the next week. On Saturday, January 8, defendant’s office manager, Jenny Jin, called plaintiff to inquire how she was doing. When plaintiff replied that she continued to be in great pain, she was told, “Everybody goes through it for two weeks.” In anger and frustration, plaintiff pressed Ms. Jin for relief from the pain; Ms. Jin said, “Then go to a doctor – any doctor there.” As it was the weekend, plaintiff was not able to see a doctor until the following Monday. On Monday, January 10, 2011, plaintiff saw a dermatologist unaffiliated with defendant. The next day, she returned to defendant’s office, and was told by one of its physicians, Dr. Tang, to go to the emergency room; plaintiff did so. On January 12, plaintiff again saw Dr. Tang, who performed nose surgery on her the following day, January 13. On January 10, 2012, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 364, plaintiff’s lawyer delivered a letter to defendant giving it notice of intent to commence an action arising from the injection administered by defendant within 90 days, thereby extending