Hanooka

Hanooka v. Pivko

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 177·22 Cal. App. 4th 1553·28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 70·94 Daily Journal DAR 2715·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1578
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 1994B072854California4,136 words

Opinion

Opinion

defendant doctors at the hospital where they maintained staff privileges complies with the notice provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 364 in order to extend the statute of limitations, and if not, whether relief can be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473. We answer both questions in the negative.

In this case, appellants Izhak Hanooka and Rina Gay Hanooka appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents Jack Pivko, M.D., and John Menkes, M.D. We affirm.

Facts

Appellant Rina Hanooka flew from Israel to Los Angeles with her infant son Ben to seek treatment for his medical condition, idiopathic infantile spasms. On August 13, 1990, respondent Menkes, a pediatric neurologist, examined the child at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center. Menkes had maintained a private practice in Beverly Hills since 1989, and moved his practice to another location within the same city prior to being served with a summons and complaint in this action. On August 15, 1990, the infant was examined by respondent Pivko at his office at 8635 West 3d Street in Los Angeles, where Pivko had been…

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.