McOWEN

McOWEN v. Grossman

Good Law
152 Cal. App. 4th 1152·61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 451
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 2007B190681California3,522 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1154 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1155 OPINION Appellant Kevin McOwen filed a medical malpractice action on March 25, 2004, against Caremore Medical Group, Peggy Salazar (not parties to this appeal) and a number of Doe defendants. On August 8, 2005, appellant amended his complaint by substituting respondent Mark Grossman, M.D., for one of the Does. The trial court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment on the ground that, as to respondent, the statute of limitations barred the action. We conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that the statute of limitations bars the action and reverse the judgment. FACTS The operative facts are not disputed, unless otherwise noted. Appellant stepped on a nail on February 1, 2003. He first received medical care for this injury on February 3, 2003, from Peggy Salazar, a nurse with Caremore, who was treating appellant's diabetes. Salazar continued to treat the foot by applying ointment.…

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.