Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV04551, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04551    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: P

Guerrero v. Regents, case no. 23SMCV04551

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

Plaintiff alleges injuries on 9/29/21 at UCLA Medical Center when she slipped and fell on water on the floor. She had been hospitalized since 9/25/21 for a kidney transplant. Defendant Regents move for judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds, as the complaint was filed 9/27/23, more than a year after the incident. Regents argue that, though the complaint alleges premises liability claims, which have a two-year statute, this should be considered a medical negligence claim, which has a one-year statute, making the claim untimely.

Plaintiff argues this is a premises claim, as alleged, as the mechanism of injury results not from the hospital’s care of plaintiff, but from a general duty of care to maintain its premises. Thus, the two-year statute of limitations applies.

The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer -- it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216. Matters subject to mandatory judicial notice may be treated as part of the complaint and may be considered. “The motion is confined to the face of the pleading under attack and all facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true.”  Hightower v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 853, 858. A plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” Code Civ. Proc. §438(c)(1)(A).

On judgment on the pleadings, all plaintiff’s allegations must be treated as true, as on demurrer.

The court agrees with plaintiff’s argument that the injuries did not arise from any alleged medical negligence or the provision of medical care. Rather, plaintiff alleges injuries arising from slipping on a recently mopped, wet floor. Simply because she was inpatient does not mean that any and all injuries she might sustain at the hospital are subsumed within the ambit of professional negligence. See Gopaul v. Herrick Memorial Hospital (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1007; Flores v. Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (2016) 63 Cal.4th 75, 88, cited by both parties.

As plaintiff argues, if a visitor slipped and fell on the wet floor, that visitor’s claim would not be one for professional negligence; it would be one for premises liability. Simply because it was inpatient plaintiff who fell, not a hypothetical visitor, does not make a premises liability claim into a professional negligence claim.

Flores, 63 Cal.4^th at 86, stated CCP 340.5’s statute of limitations would not apply in the circumstances of a “failure to place a warning sign on a wet, recently mopped floor,” exactly the circumstances presented here. The injury did not occur “in the rendering of medical services,” so the one-year statute does not apply.

The court declines to take judicial notice of plaintiff's medical records under Cal. Evid. Code 452, as there is no basis for the court to do so. The motion is denied.