 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Breceda v. County of Los Angeles3/11/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
This case presents issues under the Tort Claims Act, Government Code sections 900 et seq., concerning the statute of limitations. The case was decided on summary judgment and the facts are simple: appellant Mario Breceda had surgery at Martin Luther King Hospital on August 24, 1999. He was released from the Hospital in September. On November 19, 1999, he presented a pre-litigation claim to respondent County of Los Angeles for "Medical Malpractice commencing July 1, 1999 and continuing," and referencing his treatment at the Hospital. On January 28, 2000, the County served notice denying the claim. (ยง 913.) The notice included a warning that appellant had only six months from the date of notice to file a lawsuit on the claim, citing section 945.6.
On April 13, 2000, appellant served a Code of Civil Procedure section 364 notice on the Hospital. (That statute requires potential medical malpractice plaintiffs to notify health care providers of their intent to sue 90 days prior to filing a complaint.) Also on April 13, the County received a second pre-litigation claim from appellant. The County determined that it did not include new causes of action, and on May 23, wrote to appellant's counsel to that effect, also stating that the November 1999 claim had been denied and that the County would take no further action on the April claim.
On August 29, 2000, appellant sued the County for negligence arising out of his treatment at the Hospital. Respondent moved for summary judgment on the ground that the cause of action was untimely, contending that under section 945.6, appellant had to file within six months of respondent's notice rejecting his November 1999 claim, that is, by July 28. The trial court agreed, as do we.
Discussion
Appellant's central argument is that the April 13 claim was a new claim (or least that respondent did not establish otherwise) and that respondent's failure to formally reject the claim under section 913 means that the applicable statute of limitations is the one found in section 945.6, subdivision (b)(2). That statute provides that if a governmental entity does not respond to a claim in accordance with section 913, the lawsuit may be filed within two years from the accrual of the cause of action.
We begin our analysis with a review of each claim.
The November 19, 1999 claim had two sections, "Nature of Claim," and "Damages." Under "Nature of Claim," it read "Medical Malpractice commencing July 1, 1999 and continuing. Failure to properly diagnose and treat a condition of black-out spells. For full details please see the medical records in the possession of the County of Los Angeles from both Martin Luther King Hospital (in-patient and out-patient) and County USC Medical Center where claimant was subsequently treated." Under "Damages," it read "Claimant has required multiple surgical procedures and treatment, has been left with what appears to be permanent residuals regarding his spine, has had what appears to be permanent damage to his vocal cords."
The April 13 claim is on a form which asks when, where, and how the injury occurred. Appellant specified that the injury occurred at the Hospital in November of 1999. In the "how" category, appellant wrote "surgery -- damage to vocal cords."
In this action, appellant alleged that the defen
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|