Davis

Davis v. Marin

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 333·2000 Daily Journal DAR 4445·80 Cal. App. 4th 380·94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3300
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 27, 2000B128650California2,395 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

Introduction

Plaintiff and appellant Christina Davis appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Melody Marin, D.C. The issue on appeal is whether Dr. Marin was timely added as a defendant in the lawsuit. Concluding she was timely added as a defendant, we reverse the summary judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Prelitigation events.

On December 6, 1996, Davis suffered multiple burns to her back when Dr. Marin, a chiropractor, utilized a muscle stimulator machine during a course of chiropractic treatment.

On December 7, 1996, Davis told Dr. Marin about the bums.

Davis decided to bring a lawsuit two or three days after she was burned. Davis contacted the law offices of Lee Arter to represent her. Attorney Arter’s firm was retained and conducted an investigation in an attempt to determine whether the machine was defective, whether there was negligent maintenance of the machine, or whether the cause of the burns was due to Dr. Marin’s medical malpractice.

On December 10, 1996, Davis returned to Dr. Marin’s office. Davis showed Dr. Marin the bums. Dr. Marin did not respond to Davis’s questions about whether the injuries were…

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.