Krishnan v. Specialty Laboratories
Filed 8/9/06 Krishnan v. Specialty Laboratories CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| KRIS KRISHNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SPECIALTY LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B185660 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC320144) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Roy Legal Group and Raj D. Roy for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Breidenbach, Huchting & Hamblet and Gary A. Collis for Defendant and Respondent Specialty Laboratories, Inc.
Yee & Belilove, Steve R. Belilove and Robert A. Hufnagel for Defendant and Respondent Donald Gabriel.
Sinnott, Dito, Moura & Puebla, John J. Moura and Randolph P. Sinnott for Defendant and Respondent Indemnity Company of California.
* * * * * * * * * *
Appellant Kris Krishnan appeals from the trial court's orders granting demurrers without leave to amend, leading to dismissals as to defendants Specialty Laboratories, Inc.; Republic Indemnity Company of California (Republic); and Attorney Donald Gabriel (collectively, respondents.)[1] The operative second amended complaint (SAC) was for medical malpractice and, as to respondents, for alleged altering of appellant's medical records in 1995 and 2003. Appellant was allegedly infected with Lyme disease bacteria in 1995 when working as a scientist with respondent Specialty Laboratories, Inc. (Specialty Labs.) He was then admitted to the emergency room of defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars). He returned to Cedars in 2003 with a seizure he alleges resulted from the first incident. The gravamen of the SAC for purposes of this appeal is that respondents, Cedars, and Dr. Doran Kim collaborated by altering his medical records for the 2003 incident, as had been done regarding the 1995 medical records. Finding the demurrers properly sustained and no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend, we affirm the judgments (orders of dismissal.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Second Amended Complaint
Appellant's initial complaint was filed August 17, 2004; his first amended complaint was filed October 18, 2004. Neither is part of appellant's appendix.
The operative SAC was filed March 21, 2005; with attachments, there were 93 pages in the complaint. Appellant named Cedars, Dr. Kim, and respondents as defendants. The first cause of action, against Cedars and Dr. Kim, was for alleged medical malpractice on or about May 22, 2003. That claim remains; thus, Cedars and Dr. Kim are not parties to this appeal, there being no final judgment in their favor. The other three causes of action were for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and concealment; the second, third, and fourth causes of actions named all three named respondents, Cedars, and Dr. Kim as defendants. The SAC referred to attachments that were alleged to have provided the factual prerequisites for the four causes of action.
Attachment 1 to the SAC is a summary of the chronological history as represented by appellant. Appellant described his infection with Lyme disease while working at Specialty Labs in 1995; alteration of medical records at Cedars for his treatment on June 23, 1995; workers' compensation benefits until 1997; and a subsequent â€
