CA: limitations bars suit for injury in surgery: failure to diagnose PostOp symptoms excepted.
COURT'S OPINION: The Court of Appeal of California affirmed the order of the lower court as to the cause of action for fraud and/or deceit. However, the court ordered the trial court to vacate its order on the causes of action for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. The court held, inter alia, that in a suit for personal injury or medical malpractice, suit must be brought within three years after the date of injury or one year after a patient discovers, or should have discovered an injury, whichever occurs first. Although the court recognized that the patient was aware of the symptoms immediately after surgery, it was not that injury which was the subject of all of the plaintiffs causes of action. Nowhere did the patient allege that the defendants were negligent in poking a hole in his cranium. Rather, he maintained that they were negligent in failing to diagnose the cause of his postsurgical symptoms. Wheeler v. Castro, 2003 WL 22765323-CA
Meet the Editor & Publisher: A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Providence, R.I. firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Reagan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievement as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, and Who's Who in America.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Medical Malpractice Cases|
|Author:||Tammelleo, A. David|
|Publication:||Medical Law's Regan Report|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2003|
|Previous Article:||ME: ER Dr. had 'no independent recollection': cause of injury shown on history ruled admissible.|
|Next Article:||$10 million award pared down by damage cap.|