Kleefeld

Kleefeld v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 611·25 Cal. App. 4th 1680·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 12·94 Daily Journal DAR 8271·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4487
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 1994A065008California1,320 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

Petitioner Richard Frank Kleefeld, D.C. (defendant), contends a malpractice action against him is barred by the one-year statute of limitations found in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 (section 340.5). We agree and issue the peremptory writ he requests.

On October 17, 1990, Darline Cunningham died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm. Five days later, her husband, real party in interest, William Cunningham (plaintiff), contacted the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) expressing his concern that defendant may have excessively treated his wife. In an interview with a Board investigator on January 15, 1991, plaintiff further expressed his view that inappropriate treatment by defendant might be the cause of his wife’s death. An investigation commenced which ultimately led to the discipline of defendant.

On July 20,1992, real party served notice of his intention to commence an action against defendant in accordance with section 364 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on October 21, 1992, two years after his wife’s death, plaintiff filed his complaint.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by section 340.5. That section provides in…

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.