Newman

Newman v. Burnett

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 223·54 Cal. App. 4th 722·62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 175·97 Daily Journal DAR 4049·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2254
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1997F025174California2,253 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

In Woods v. Young (1991) 53 Cal.3d 315 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455 ], the Supreme Court held that a 90-day notice of intent to sue for medical malpractice (Code Civ. Proc., § 364, subd. (a)), when served during the last 90 days of the 1-year statute of limitations period prescribed by section 340.5, tolls the statute of limitations for 90 days. Woods noted that the alternative three-year adult statute of limitations in section 340.5 was not before it in that case. Now pending before the Supreme Court is a case presenting the issue whether a section 364, subdivision (a) notice tolls the adult three-year statute in the same way it tolls the one-year statute. (Russell v. Stanford University Hospital (Cal.App.), review granted Aug. 21, 1996.) The present case requires that we determine whether a section 364, subdivision (a) notice tolls the three-year statute of limitations for minors, also contained in section 340.5. We conclude service of an intent-to-sue notice during the last 90 days of the 3-year limitation period applicable to minors tolls the statute of limitations for 90 days; we reverse the judgment below.

Facts and Procedural History

Appellant Michael…

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.