Munoz

Munoz v. Purdy

Good Law
154 Cal. Rptr. 472·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 1640·91 Cal. App. 3d 942
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1979Civ. 16980California1,713 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiener, J.

We are asked to decide in this appeal whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied Code of Civil Procedure section 474 in granting Everett K. Purdy’s motion for summary judgment based upon the one-year statute of limitations (§ 340.5). For the reasons which we will discuss, we conclude the trial court used an erroneous standard in holding that the plaintiff was charged with not only her actual knowledge at the time she filed suit, but information that she could have obtained upon the exercise of reasonable diligence which would have enabled her to file suit against Dr. Purdy in a timely fashion. We reverse the judgment of dismissal.

Defendant Everett K. Purdy, M.D. (Purdy), a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, performed foot surgery on the plaintiff Sonia Munoz on February 16, 1973, at the Paradise Valley Hospital. Shortly after her surgery, she was taken to the radiology department of the hospital for a chest X-ray. She was asked to stand for the X-ray and fainted. She then began to suffer severe headaches and on March 1, complained to Purdy of her symptoms. She consulted counsel on or about March 16, 1973, at which time she believed she had been a victim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.