A California woman has filed a complaint against a physical therapy provider, alleging that their treatments caused her severe and lasting injuries. Wenqian Zuo filed the complaint in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, on January 19, 2024, against Select CAL Physical Therapy, P.C.
Zuo's complaint stems from physical therapy sessions she attended in June 2019 to treat a frozen shoulder following surgery in May 2019. According to Zuo, the exercises prescribed by Select CAL Physical Therapy resulted in significant nerve and muscle damage to her left shoulder. Despite initially finding some relief from her frozen shoulder condition, Zuo experienced intense pain during the sessions and subsequently suffered from ongoing issues. She claims that she did not fully understand the extent of her injuries until undergoing further medical imaging in early 2022.
In March 2023, Zuo formally filed her complaint against Select CAL Physical Therapy. She explained that she had delayed filing due to waiting for the outcome of a worker’s compensation claim related to her injury. However, when it became clear that neither her employer nor insurance would cover her expenses after more than three years of effort, she proceeded with legal action. Select CAL Physical Therapy responded by demurring on grounds that Zuo's claim was time-barred under California's statute of limitations for medical malpractice (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5), which requires such actions to be brought within three years of the date of injury or one year after discovering the injury.
The trial court sustained Select’s demurrer but allowed Zuo to amend her complaint. In July 2023, Zuo submitted an amended complaint reiterating that she experienced severe pain during physical therapy and later discovered additional injuries through X-rays and MRIs conducted in early 2022. Nevertheless, Select again demurred on similar grounds, asserting that Zuo’s claim remained barred by the statute of limitations and failed to state a cause of action.
On December 13, 2023, the trial court upheld Select’s demurrer without leave for further amendment. The court ruled that based on Zuo’s own allegations about experiencing extreme pain during physical therapy in June 2019, she should have been aware of her injury at that time—triggering the statute of limitations period. The court concluded that allowing further amendments would be futile as they would not overcome the statute's bar.
Zuo appealed this decision but faced challenges due to noncompliance with appellate briefing rules and lack of supporting evidence within the record presented at trial. Despite acknowledging ongoing pain and referencing various medical findings post-therapy sessions, these were insufficient to extend or toll the statutory deadline under existing legal standards.
Representing herself throughout these proceedings has undoubtedly added complexity to Zuo's case; however, both self-represented litigants and those with legal counsel are held to identical procedural standards.
The presiding judges were Danner J., Bamattre-Manoukian Acting P.J., and Wilson J., under Case ID H051913.