Legal Opinion

Gutierrez v. Mofid

California Supreme Court

Decided September 26, 1985No. L.A. 31922PublishedCited by 125 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GRODIN, J.

A medical malpractice action must be commenced within one year after the patient “discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered” his “injury.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.)1 Is the time of “discovery” postponed when a suspicious patient consults an attorney who advises that there is no legal remedy? We conclude that it is not. We will therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of these malpractice defendants.

Facts

Plaintiff entered defendant White Memorial Medical Center (the hospital) in December 1978 with a pain in her right side. On December…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by125 opinions

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Jordache Enterprises Inc. v. BrobeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994

120 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API