David M. v. Beverly Hospital

Good Law
131 Cal. App. 4th 1272·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256·2005 Daily Journal DAR 9856·32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7247
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 12, 2005B176692California3,607 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

The principal issue in this case is which of two statutes of limitations is applicable where a physician negligently fails to report suspected child abuse.

On the one hand, the general three-year statute of limitations for a statutorily created liability (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (a)), such as the obligation of physicians and others mandated by statute to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse (Pen. Code, §§ 11165.7, 11166), is tolled until the minor reaches the age of majority. (§ 352, subd. (a).) On the other hand, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) specifically requires that a suit be filed against a physician for professional negligence within either three years from the date of injury or sometime prior to the minor’s eighth birthday, whichever period is longer. (§ 340.5.) We hold that allegations that a physician negligently failed to report suspected child abuse, which should have been discovered during a medical examination while rendering professional services, constitute a claim for professional negligence within the meaning of MICRA’s more restrictive statute of limitations.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In a complaint filed on…

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.