Regan v. Osteon Surgery Center CA2/8

Filed 1/22/15 Regan v. Osteon Surgery Center CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

SUSANA REGAN, B254440

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC098034) v.

OSTEON SURGERY CENTER,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Teresa A. Beaudet, Daniel J. Buckley and Amy Hogue, Judges. Affirmed.

Susana Regan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

La Follette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames, Don Fesler and David J. Ozeran for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Susana Regan sued defendant and respondent Osteon Surgery Center, Inc. Regan’s operative first amended complaint alleged causes of action for general negligence and premises liability based on the predominant claim that an unknown Osteon employee sexually assaulted her while she was under general anesthesia at Osteon’s medical facility. Osteon filed a demurrer based on the statute of limitations. The trial court sustained Osteon’s demurrer without leave to amend. Regan appealed. We affirm. FACTS On the morning of August 13, 2010, Regan went to Osteon’s medical facility in Encino for knee surgery. The surgery was performed under general anesthesia. Regan was released from Osteon’s facility early in the afternoon, and went straight home. At about 3:30 p.m., Regan went to lay down on her bed. “At that time, she noticed liquid discharging from her vagina, which was semen.” Regan realized then that she had been sexually assaulted while she was unconscious.1 On August 7, 2012, Regan (represented by counsel) filed a complaint against Osteon alleging a cause of action for general negligence and for premises liability. Regan’s complaint alleged the facts stated above. Further, the complaint alleged that Osteon breached a duty of care to screen, hire, train and supervise its employees. On June 28, 2013, Regan (still represented by counsel) filed her operative first amended complaint. The substantive allegations in Regan’s first amended complaint largely mirrored her original complaint. In Paragraph 9 of her first amended complaint, Regan expressly alleged that the person who had sexually assaulted her was an Osteon employee.