Quiroz v. Seventh Avenue Center
140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222, 2006 Daily Journal DAR 8248 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A survivor cause of action, which seeks damages for a decedent's pre-death injuries, does not relate back to a timely filed wrongful death cause of action, which seeks damages for an heir's own personal injuries, because the two claims allege different injuries to different parties.
Facts:
- Gilbert Quiroz was a mentally ill dependent adult who resided at Seventh Avenue Center, a skilled nursing facility.
- The facility was responsible for his medical care, including providing and monitoring his medication.
- The complaint alleged that the defendants, including the facility and its staff, negligently and recklessly overmedicated Gilbert Quiroz.
- On April 6, 2001, Gilbert Quiroz died while a resident at the facility.
- Maria G. Quiroz is the mother and heir of Gilbert Quiroz.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 5, 2002, Maria G. Quiroz (mother) and Manuel Quiroz (brother) filed an original complaint against Seventh Avenue Center and others in state trial court, alleging a single cause of action for wrongful death.
- Defendants demurred to the complaint.
- On May 29, 2002, more than one year after Gilbert Quiroz's death, Maria G. Quiroz filed a first amended complaint as the sole plaintiff, asserting two causes of action: a wrongful death claim on her own behalf and a survivor claim on behalf of the decedent.
- Defendants moved for summary adjudication of the survivor claim, arguing it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court, treating the motion as a motion to strike, struck allegations related to the Elder Abuse Act, concluding they were time-barred and did not relate back.
- Maria G. Quiroz moved for reconsideration, which the trial court granted, but upon reconsideration, it affirmed its ruling and struck the entire survivor cause of action as barred by the statute of limitations.
- Maria G. Quiroz voluntarily dismissed her remaining wrongful death cause of action, and final judgment was entered for the defendants.
- Maria G. Quiroz, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a survivor cause of action, added in an amended complaint after the statute of limitations has run, relate back to the timely filing of an original complaint that only asserted a wrongful death cause of action?
Opinions:
Majority - Duffy, J.
No. A survivor cause of action pleaded after the statute of limitations has run does not relate back to a timely filed wrongful death claim because the two claims assert different injuries. A wrongful death action is a new claim that arises upon death to compensate the decedent's heirs for their own injuries, such as loss of companionship and support. In contrast, a survivor action is the decedent's own cause of action for his pre-death injuries, which survives his death and is pursued by a successor in interest on his behalf. Because the survivor claim seeks to remedy the decedent's injuries while the wrongful death claim seeks to remedy the heir's injuries, they involve different primary rights and different plaintiffs in their respective capacities. The relation-back doctrine's requirement of the 'same injury' is therefore not met, and the untimely survivor action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the critical distinction between wrongful death and survivor actions for the purposes of the relation-back doctrine and statutes of limitation. It serves as a strong precedent that even when two claims arise from the same general facts, they are considered legally distinct if they vindicate different primary rights and compensate different injuries. The decision clarifies that the remedial purposes of statutes like the Elder Abuse Act do not override fundamental procedural rules governing the timeliness of claims. This holding cautions attorneys to plead all potential, distinct causes of action in the initial complaint to avoid having a subsequent, otherwise valid claim be time-barred.
