Camarillo

Camarillo v. Vaage

Good Law
105 Cal. App. 4th 552·130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 26·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 84·2003 Daily Journal DAR 817·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 617
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2003D039057California7,697 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case we are required to consider the interplay of Code of Civil Procedure section 364, subdivisions (a), (d) and (e), a MICRA notice provision, and section 474, respecting the naming of Doe defendants, on the issue of whether the section 364 requirement of giving notice of intent to commence a medical malpractice action, as applied to known potential defendants, means that no such 90-day notice need be given to potential Doe defendants, nor must a shell medical malpractice complaint naming Doe defendants be filed in order to avoid the loss of a claim due to untimeliness, as against any such potential Doe defendants. These issues arise in plaintiff and appellant Claudia Camarillo’s complaint for legal malpractice against defendant Attorneys Robert F. Vaage and Debra A. Morse (Defendant Attorneys). Camarillo claims they committed professional negligence by failing to make a timely filing of a Doe defendant complaint to preserve a potential medical malpractice action against the delivery doctor at the birth of Camarillo’s child, Francisco, because their actual timely filing of a notice of intent to commence a medical malpractice action against certain other medical…

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.