Hennard v. Asian Pacific Health Care Venture CA2/6

Filed 8/24/22 Hennard v. Asian Pacific Health Care Venture CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MAX HENNARD, 2d Civil No. B312604 (Super. Ct. No. 20CV00470) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

ASIAN PACIFIC HEALTH CARE VENTURE, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Max Hennard appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to his third amended complaint without granting leave to amend. Hennard contends the court erred when it determined that his causes of action against Asian Pacific Health Care Venture, Inc. (APHCV), are barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2017, Hennard and Dana Cook were parties to a family law proceeding. During a hearing held that month, Hennard said that he had recently become “aware of a screen

shot [sic] that had been printed out of his [APHCV] medical record[s].” At a hearing the following month, Hennard said that he had received a letter from APHCV describing its investigation into the access of his medical records. The letter also stated that Cook had visited an APHCV employee a few months earlier and used her computer. At that same hearing Cook revealed information about Hennard’s medical history over his objection. Hennard sued APHCV in January 2020, alleging that it permitted Cook to access his medical records without authorization. He amended his complaint several times over the following months. The trial court sustained APHCV’s demurrer to Hennard’s second amended complaint, finding that the causes of action therein were barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure1 section 340.5. The court granted Hennard leave to amend, inviting him to allege facts addressing the statute-of-limitations issue. Hennard filed a third amended complaint a few weeks later. In it, Hennard alleged that he did not learn that it was Cook who had taken the screenshot of his medical records until APHCV gave him a copy of its final investigative report in December 2019. APHCV again demurred. The trial court concluded that Hennard knew of the facts underlying the causes of action in his complaint no later than April 2017 and was thus required to file his complaint by April 2018. Because he did not sue APHCV until January 2020, his causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations. The court accordingly sustained APHCV’s demurrer, this time without granting leave to amend.