Legal Opinion

Russell v. Stanford University Hospital

California Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1997No. S054329PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK, J.

In this matter we address apparently conflicting provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (hereafter MICRA), concerning the statute of limitations for bringing professional negligence actions against health care providers. Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 requires that such an action must be commenced within “three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first,” and provides that…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Woods v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Young v. HainesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Fogarty v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. People v. McCaskeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Elsner v. UvegesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Pope v. BrockMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. ReiswigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Schubert v. ReynoldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

12 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