Legal Opinion

Hills v. Aronsohn

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 2, 1984No. Civ. 68788PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, Acting P. J.

Introduction

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment on the ground this medical malpractice action was barred by the statute of limitations. This appeal raises the following two issues: first, whether the action is untimely as a matter of law under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5; and second, whether the foreign body doctrine can apply where a patient received injections of liquid silicone so that the limitations period was tolled under the provisions of that statute. We agree with the trial court that the action was time barred. We accordingly…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Huysman v. KirschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Pellett v. Sonotone Corp.California Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Larcher v. WanlessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Brown v. BleibergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Tresemer v. BarkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  2. Rose v. FifeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  3. Moore v. State Board of ControlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  4. Trantafello v. Medical Center of TarzanaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. Unjian v. BermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

27 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