DISCUSSION

Our review of a summary judgment is de novo. Therefore, we must decide independently whether the undisputed material facts warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. (California Restaurant Management Systems v. City of San Diego (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1581, 1590-1591.)

1 All further statutory references are to the Government Code.

2. Before suing a public entity for personal injuries, the plaintiff must present a timely written claim for damages to the entity. (Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 208.) Such timely claim presentation is a condition precedent to filing an action against the entity and thus is an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Id. at p. 209.) Accordingly, failure to timely present such a claim bars a plaintiff from maintaining a lawsuit against that entity. (State of California v. Superior Court (Bodde) (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239.) Additionally, under section 950.2, when an employee of the public entity is sued for an act or omission in the scope of his or her employment, the plaintiff is required to present a timely claim to the employing public entity. The action against the employee or former employee is barred by the failure of the plaintiff to present such a claim. (Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1750; C.A. Magistretti Co. v. Merced Irrigation Dist. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 270, 274.) Here, it is undisputed that Chang was employed by the County, a public entity, at the County’s hospital when the alleged medical malpractice took place. It is also undisputed that Chang was acting in the scope of his employment when he treated appellant. Appellant admitted that he did not file a claim with the County. Therefore, appellant cannot maintain his action against Chang. Thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in Chang’s favor. Appellant refers to his legal representation as being inadequate. However, for purposes of this appeal, counsel’s competence is irrelevant. A plaintiff is not excused from the claim presentation requirement based on attorney error. (Cf. Castro v. Sacramento County Fire Protection Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 927, 933-934.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, no costs are awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

3.