Novoa v. Sespe Medical CA2/6

Filed 11/18/21 Novoa v. Sespe Medical CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

HIDANIA NOVOA, 2d Civ. No. B310302 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2019-00537320- Plaintiff and Appellant, CV-FR-VTA (Ventura County) v.

SESPE MEDICAL, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Hidania Novoa appeals a judgment entered on the pleadings in favor of Sespe Medical, Inc., Bautista Medical Group Southern California, Inc., and Jorge Bautista.1 We conclude that the one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 bars Novoa’s causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and concealment, and affirm.2

We refer to defendants collectively as “Sespe” except 1

where clarity demands that we draw a distinction. 2 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil

Procedure.

This appeal concerns Novoa’s claims against Sespe arising during the course of her medical treatment following her pregnancy. Novoa alleges that Sespe mishandled her employment disability forms, causing her employer to dismiss her. Specifically, she alleges that Jorge Bautista misrepresented to her that he was a licensed physician instead of a physician’s assistant. Among other defenses, Sespe responds that Novoa’s claims arise from the rendering of medical professional services to which the one-year limitations period of section 340.5 applies. The trial court agreed and granted Sespe’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 13, 2019, Novoa filed a complaint for intentional misrepresentation and concealment against Sespe. She alleges that in 2017 she was on a pregnancy leave of absence and was treated by Bautista, who represented himself as a licensed physician. Novoa’s employer, the City of Oxnard, requested written information from Bautista regarding Novoa’s disability. Bautista did not respond timely and eventually provided incomplete information. He instructed Novoa to complete the information on the disability form, which she eventually did. Novoa alleges that her employer then dismissed her from employment for altering the disability form. Bautista later sent a detailed letter to the employer to clarify the misunderstanding. It was through this January 2, 2018, detailed letter that Novoa learned that Bautista was not a licensed physician, but rather a physician’s assistant. Sespe filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that section 340.5 barred Novoa’s lawsuit. The trial court agreed and granted the motion without leave to amend. In