Photias

Photias v. Doerfler

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 481·45 Cal. App. 4th 1014·53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202·96 Daily Journal DAR 5985·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3700
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 22, 1996B091837California2,543 words

Opinion

Opinion

Spencer, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff Gregg Photias appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Warren T. Doerfler, M.D., after the trial court found that plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Procedural and Factual Background

In 1971, when plaintiff was approximately six months old, defendant noted that plaintiff’s right testicle was “high” and his left testicle was “not palpable.” The condition continued through 1975, during which period defendant provided plaintiff’s general medical care and treatment. Defendant saw plaintiff only once after 1975 or 1976; he treated him for a skin rash on July 10, 1984.

Plaintiff applied for part-time employment at Antelope Valley Hospital Medical Center in December 1988. A preemployment physical examination revealed that plaintiff’s testicles had not descended. As a consequence, plaintiff had a bilateral orchiopexy on March 13, 1989, to place the testicles within the scrotum. Following the surgery, plaintiff’s semen was tested. He learned he was sterile.

Plaintiff notified defendant of his intent to sue on February 2, 1990. The instant complaint was filed on May 1, 1990. It alleges that…

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.