Nichols v. Alghannam

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, modified its February 18, 2026 opinion in Nichols v. Alghannam by clarifying that references to Civil Code section 3333.2, former subdivision (c)(2), concern a provision renumbered effective January 1, 2023. The modification added a footnote explaining the renumbering and expressly made no change to the judgment. In the underlying appeal, the court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against a physician arising from their mother’s fentanyl-overdose death, holding that the medical-malpractice claims were time-barred and that the elder-abuse allegations were insufficient.

Holdings

1. Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 applies to the claims against Alghannam because the complaint did not allege that his services were outside the scope of services for which he was licensed or subject to a hospital restriction limiting the scope of his practice beyond professional-conduct obligations.
2. The complaint did not adequately allege intentional concealment sufficient to toll section 340.5's three-year limitations period.
3. Plaintiffs failed to establish that their claims against Alghannam related back to the original complaint because they did not timely serve the amended complaint within the period required by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210, subdivision (a).
4. The fifth amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for elder abuse because it did not adequately allege a qualifying caretaking or custodial relationship, a specific act constituting physical abuse, or the recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice required for heightened Elder Abuse Act remedies.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the three-year and one-year limitations periods in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 applied to plaintiffs' claims against Alghannam.
2. Whether the fifth amended complaint adequately alleged intentional concealment sufficient to toll section 340.5's three-year limitations period.
3. Whether plaintiffs' claims against Alghannam related back to the original complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 474.
4. Whether the fifth amended complaint stated a cause of action for elder abuse based on neglect or physical abuse.
5. Whether plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable possibility of curing the pleading defects by amendment.

Disposition

affirmed