Lindsay v. American Red Cross

Background

Michael Lindsay was donating plasma and platelets at American Red Cross offices in San Jose, California, on May 28, 2022. After the donation process ended, he was found unconscious on the premises' restroom floor with signs of head trauma. He never regained consciousness and died from his injuries on June 6, 2022.

Aiden Lindsay and Katie Lindsay, identified as Michael Lindsay's surviving children, asserted five claims against the American Red Cross concerning his care during and after the donation. The Red Cross moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not legally state a claim, seeking dismissal of Claims One, Two, Three, and Five as time-barred or duplicative. The Red Cross did not move to dismiss Claim Four.

Whether California's Health-Care Statute Applied

The court held that California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 applied to all of the plaintiffs' claims. That statute establishes rules for professional negligence claims against health-care providers, including a statute of limitations and a professional-negligence standard.

The parties did not dispute that the Red Cross was a blood bank. The court therefore treated it as a health-care provider for purposes of the statute. The court also concluded that the statute applied because the plaintiffs alleged that the Red Cross negligently monitored Michael Lindsay after the blood donation. The court rejected the argument that section 340.5 could not apply because the Red Cross was not providing medical care to Michael Lindsay at the precise time of his injury. It reasoned that the alleged injury occurred while the Red Cross was providing professional health-care services to others.

Duplicative Claims

The court concluded that Claims One, Two, and Three were duplicative of Claims Four and Five. Because the professional-negligence standard applied, the court found that the claims had the same elements even though they used different labels.

Claim One alleged negligence resulting in wrongful death, while Claim Four alleged medical malpractice resulting in wrongful death. The court found that both claims involved the same wrongful-death allegations and the same negligence standard.

Claims Two and Three alleged negligence in a survival action and premises liability. Claim Five alleged medical malpractice in a survival action. The Red Cross argued, and the plaintiffs did not dispute, that the substance of the claims was medical negligence rather than premises liability. The court therefore found Claims Two and Three duplicative of Claim Five.

Statute of Limitations

The court also held that Claim Five was time-barred under section 340.5's one-year limitations period based on the allegations then before it. The plaintiffs filed the action on June 5, 2023, more than one year after Michael Lindsay's May 28, 2022 injury.

The plaintiffs argued that the complaint alleged the action was filed within one year after they knew or reasonably should have known about the injury. They also referred to evidence they said could support delayed discovery, including correspondence and requests for medical records and incident-related documents. At the hearing, however, the plaintiffs acknowledged that they had not pleaded facts supporting the delayed-discovery rule and requested permission to amend.

Disposition

The court ordered that the Red Cross's motion to dismiss Claims One, Two, and Three as duplicative was granted without leave to amend. It ordered that the motion to dismiss Claim Five as time-barred was granted with leave to amend.

Any amended complaint must be filed no later than 30 days after entry of the order. The plaintiffs may amend only consistently with the order, and they may not add causes of action or parties without the court's permission. Because this was a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal order addressing duplication and timeliness rather than the ultimate merits of the negligence allegations, the matter is classified as a procedural order.