Curtis

Curtis v. Osmunson

Good Law
254 F. App'x 593
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 14, 2007No. 06-35417California356 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Virginia Curtis sued Defendant Willard Osmunson, her former dentist, alleging negligence under Idaho law for failure to diagnose and treat an abscess in her mouth. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant, ruling that Plaintiffs claim was barred by Idaho’s two-year statute of limitations, Idaho Code Ann. § 5-219 (4). On de novo review, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

1. Plaintiff argues that the injury that she suffered from Defendant’s negligence was the failure of the abscess to heal after a root canal on June 17, 2002. Consequently, she reasons, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until that date, and her complaint, filed on June 15, 2004, was timely.

Under Idaho law, a cause of action for medical malpractice accrues when “objective medical proof would support the existence of an actual injury.... Whether there was some damage, or whether that damage was objectively ascertainable, does not depend upon the knowledge of the injured party.” Lapham v. Stewart, 137 Idaho 582 , 51 P.3d 396, 401 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We view Plaintiffs deposition and affidavit testimony in the…

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.