Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hospital

• Decision Date: 28 February 1968
• Citation: 66 Cal.Rptr. 659,259 Cal.App.2d 562
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Edward HSU and Lily Hsu, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MT. ZION HOSPITAL, a corporation, San Francisco Ambulance Service, Dr. Robert Reiss and City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 23575.

Page 659

66 Cal.Rptr. 659

259 Cal.App.2d 562

Edward HSU and Lily Hsu, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MT. ZION HOSPITAL, a corporation, San Francisco Ambulance Service, Dr. Robert Reiss and City and County of San Francisco, a municipal corporation, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 23575.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Feb. 28, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1968.

Hearing Denied April 24, 1968.

Van Pinney, San Francisco, for appellants.

Clark, Heafey & Martin, Chris G. Gasparich, Oakland, for respondent Mt. Zion Hospital.

John D. St. Clair, Edward J. McFetridge, Hauerken, St. Clair, Zappettini & Hines, San Francisco, for respondent Richard R. Angotti, individually and doing business as San Francisco Ambulance Service.

Bledsoe, Smith, Cathcart, Johnson & Rogers, San Francisco, Robert A. Seligson, San Francisco, of counsel, for respondent Robert Reiss, M.D.

Thomas M. O'Connor, City Atty. of City and County of San Francisco, Patrick R. Kelly, Deputy City Atty., San Francisco, for respondent City and County of San Francisco.

MOLINARI, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of dismissal in favor of defendants following special jury verdicts.

Statement of the Case

On September 7, 1960, plaintiffs Edward and Lily Hsu, husband and wife, filed the instant action against defendants Mt. Zion Hospital, Dr. Robert Reiss, Richard R. Angotti, and City and County of San Francisco. The complaint seeks damages for malpractice, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. The cause of action alleged is based on an incident that took place on July 13, 1957, when, as alleged by plaintiffs, Mr. Hsu was removed from Mt. Zion Hospital by force and violence and taken to the San Francisco City and County Hospital (hereinafter referrred to as San Francisco Hospital) against his will, and Mrs. Hsu, who was present at the time was assaulted and battered, resulting in her becoming insane. Plaintiffs alleged that the one-year statute of limitations (Code Civ.Proc. § 340, subd. 3) did not bar the action because Mrs. Hsu was insane from July 13, 1957 to October 16, 1959 and the time of such disability was not a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action (Code Civ.Proc. § 352, subd. 2), and further alleged that defendants prevented Mr. Hsu from discovering the facts forming the basis of his claim until Mrs. Hsu regained her sanity and informed him of these facts.

The cause proceeded to trial by jury solely on the severed issue of the statute of limitations. In two special verdicts, the jury found the following facts: that Mrs. Hsu was insane on July 13, 1957; that she became sane for some period of time prior to September 7, 1959; that during the months of March, April, and May of 1959, she was capable of caring for her property, transacting business, or understanding the nature and effect of her acts; and that Mrs. Hsu first learned of the alleged tortious conduct of each defendant prior to September 7, 1959. The jury further rendered a general verdict to the effect that the causes of action of both Mr. and Mrs. Hsu were barred by the statute of limitations. ¹

Plaintiffs make numerous contentions. Basically, they claim the following: First, Mrs. Hsu's commitment to Napa State Hospital on July 30, 1957, conclusively establishes her insanity for purposes of the statute of limitations until her official discharge on October 16, 1959; hence, the jury's verdict against her is contrary to law. Second, errors in the instructions and in the admission of evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Third, counsel for defendants committed prejudicial misconduct. Fourth, the court selected an unfit interpreter. Fifth, defendant Reiss was guilty of fraudulent concealment which bars him from relying on the defense of the statute of limitations.

Facts

On July 12, 1957, Mr. Hsu was admitted to Mt. Zion Hospital by his physician, Dr. Reiss, for treatment for a collapsed lung. Following a surgical procedure for correction of this condition, it was determined that he was suffering from active tuberculosis. On July 13, 1957, Dr. Reiss ordered that he be transferred to San Francisco Hospital. Upon the arrival of an ambulance for the transfer, Mr. Hsu became unmanageable, screamed for help, and would not go. Mrs. Hsu, who had been very belligerent, loud and hysterical most of the day, lay in the corridor kicking her legs and screaming that she was back in Communist China. Police officers were summoned and they assisted in removing both plaintiffs from the hospital. Mr. Hsu was forcibly subdued and taken to San Francisco Hospital. Mrs. Hsu, who was in a hysterical condition, had to be handcuffed and carried out of the hospital. Thereafter, on July 30, 1957, Mrs. Hsu was committed to Napa State Hospital pursuant to commitment proceedings under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 5100 et seq. (now § 5550 et seq.). ²

Mrs. Hsu's testimony ³ with respect to the events of July 13, 1957 was that policemen and hospital attendants pushed her to the floor, sat on her stomach, banged her head on the floor, and twisted her husband's arm and handcuffed him. She was, she claimed, trying to protect her husband from the attendants, because she thought they were about to rip off his oxygen mask and because she did not wish him to be moved to San Francisco Hospital. She further testified that the foregoing experience and the violent beating caused her to have an immediate mental derangement.

Mr. Hsu gave substantially the same account as his wife, in testimony indicating detailed specific recollection of what he believed to be the events of July 13, 1957. He also testified that Dr. Reiss advised him to be transferred to San Francisco Hospital in order to save money, but that he and his wife asserted that they had sufficient money to pay for treatment at Mt. Zion and that he did not wish to be moved to San Francisco Hospital, which he considered little better than a garbage can or a jail.

On December 3, 1957, Mrs. Hsu was released from Napa State Hospital on an indefinite leave of absence. She had a relapse and was returned to the hospital on October 15, 1958, as acutely disturbed and obviously psychotic. The staff notes on her progress after that date indicate that she became aggressive and destructive soon after admission but responded to shock therapy. Her husband continually visited her, which agitated and upset her, and he insisted constantly that she be released. On January 4, 1959, Mr. Hsu wrote a letter to the Napa State Hospital staff to the effect that his wife appeared 'normal, serene and competent' and that her psychiatrist said that she did not need to be hospitalized. He requested her discharge. Mrs. Hsu was released on an indefinite leave of absence on January 5, 1959, as 'the most practical solution to this difficult problem.'

The following month the Hsus moved to a sixteen-unit apartment building owned by them. In March 1959, Mr. Hsu was committed to Napa State Hospital where he remained until the end of May 1959. During this time Mrs. Hsu maintained herself in the apartment house, collected rents and kept records of the payments. In April of 1959, the staff at Napa State Hospital decided that Mrs. Hsu was capable of taking care of her two children (Lillian, age 11, and Edward, Jr., age 12), who had been in a foster home, and the children were released into her custody. The staff opinion was to the effect that Mrs. Hsu was capable of taking care of her children so long as her husband was not in the household.

Field social service reports during Mrs. Hsu's leave indicated that she was making a satisfactory adjustment although 'still demonstrating some unusual mental symptoms.' On October 13, 1959, a staff conference at Napa State Hospital took place. It appeared that Mrs. Hsu was planning to take out citizenship papers and needed a discharge. The staff concluded that there was no evidence of psychosis at that time and recommended discharge. On October 16, 1959, Mrs. Hsu received a formal discharge release. ⁴

Mr. Hsu testified substantially to the same effect as Mrs. Hsu concerning the events of July 13, 1957. However, he stated that he first discovered his wrongs at defendants' hands around November or December of 1959 when as a result of a conversation with a friend from Formosa he was led to elicit further material facts from his wife and deduced that he had been wronged. He also stated that before he was able to talk with his wife he thought that their removal from Mt. Zion Hospital might have been occasioned by her refusal to pay a bill there, but that he subsequently ascertained in November of 1959 that such was not the case. Further, Mr. Hsu testified that Dr. Reiss visited him in the ward of San Francisco Hospital around October 10 or 11, 1957, and that he asked the doctor what had happened at Mt. Zion and mentioned that two ambulance men and one policeman had handcuffed him and dragged him out. To this assertion Dr. Reiss allegedly responded that whatever had happened to Mr. Hsu was done for his own good. On the stand, Dr. Reiss denied having discussed the events of July 13 with Mr. Hsu, stated that he visited the patient very briefly, and that Mr. Hsu had asked that he get him out of San Francisco Hospital.

Mrs. Hsu's Insanity

Mrs. Hsu's commitment on July 30, 1957 was made pursuant to section 5100 providing, as it then read, for the adjudication of a person as mentally ill and the commitment of that person if the committing judge believed that said person were either 'of such mental condition that he is is need of supervision, treatment, care, or restraint,' or 'of such mental condition that he is dangerous to himself or to the person or property of others, and is in need of supervision, treatment, care, or restraint, * * *.' Plaintiff argues that this commitment conclusively established her insanity for purposes of the statute of limitations (Code...