Pleasant

Pleasant v. Celli

Bad Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 841·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 919·22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663·93 Daily Journal DAR 11520·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6767
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 1993B062550California4,786 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

An attorney was sued for allowing the statute of limitations to expire on his client’s medical malpractice claim. A jury found the attorney liable for malpractice, and assessed damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress against him as well.

On appeal, the attorney contends that the suit against him is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the action was timely filed. He also contends that the award for negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred as a matter of law. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree, and modify the judgment accordingly.

Facts

Respondent Penny Pleasant gave birth to a daughter, Deja, in April of 1980. On September 1, 1981, Pleasant took Deja to their family physician because the child was feverish, sleepless, had cold sweats, was not urinating, and lacked appetite. Several courses of antibiotics and cough syrup were prescribed, but Deja’s condition steadily worsened. Although the child had scarcely eaten in 10 days, and there was a rash around her mouth, Pleasant was told by a physician that she was being an overprotective mother. The rash began to spread down Deja’s chin and throat, but still no blood…

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.