Filosa v. Alagappan
California Court of Appeal
59 Cal. App. 5th 772, 273 Cal. Rptr. 3d 731 (2020)
- Written by Kate Douglas, JD
Facts
In the mid-2000s, Michael Filosa (plaintiff) began suffering from headaches that grew progressively worse. In 2010, Filosa had an MRI. Dr. Ravi Alagappan (defendant) interpreted the images and found no abnormalities. Filosa’s headaches continued to worsen. In 2011, Filosa and his wife separated, and Filosa assumed care of the couple’s children. Filosa was diagnosed with depression and took two employment leaves of absence in 2011 and 2012. In December 2014, additional brain imaging revealed a brain mass. Further review of the 2010 MRI revealed that the mass was visible there and that it had subsequently grown larger. Filosa claimed that the headaches he suffered in 2010 were the same type he suffered in 2014. Filosa served Alagappan with a notice of intent to sue in November 2015. Filosa sued Alagappan for medical malpractice in March 2016, alleging that Alagappan had negligently failed to diagnose his brain mass. The trial court granted Alagappan’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Filosa’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Filosa appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tucher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
