Legal Opinion
Bennett v. SHAHHAL
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 1999No. D031570PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NARES, J.
In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff Orley Bennett appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant Imad Shahhal, M.D. As an apparent matter of first impression, we hold that a second 90-day notice of the intent to bring suit does not toll the 1-year limitations period. (Code Civ. Proc., 1 § 364, subds. (a) & (d).) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as Bennett’s action was time-barred.
Background
Bennett saw Dr. Shahhal, complaining of difficulty waiting, slurred speech, memory loss, confusion and incontinence. A CT scan revealed cerebral atrophy and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Woods v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Suk Yong Kim v. Sumitomo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- In Re Marriage of CornejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Weinstock v. EisslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Jones v. Catholic Healthcare WestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Kaplan v. MAMELAKCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Alioto v. HoilesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.