Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 1978 No. Civ. 51847Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a medical malpractice claim against a public entity is not facially untimely simply because the date of the injury occurred more than 100 days prior to the filing, as the accrual date depends on the date of discovery. Furthermore, the court held that any defect regarding the timeliness of the claim was waived because the county failed to provide notice of insufficiency under Government Code section 910.8.

Issues

Whether a medical malpractice claim is facially untimely if the date of injury listed on the claim form is more than 100 days prior to filing.
Whether a public entity waives defects in a claim by failing to provide notice of insufficiency under Government Code section 911.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The premise of the county’s argument—that the claim was untimely on its face—is incorrect.”

“The most that the county could have gathered from the claim, as presented, was that it might have been untimely.”

“If no notice under section 910.8 is given all defects in the claim—except a lack of the claimant’s address—are waived.”

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of dismissal which followed a trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s general demurrer without leave to amend.

[244]

The Complaint

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff submitted himself to surgery at one of the defendant county’s medical facilities on October 1, 1975, that employees of the county committed malpractice in connection with the surgery, that plaintiff discovered the malpractice in March 1976 and filed a claim, later rejected, on May 24, 1976.

In connection with its demurrer the county asked the court to take judicial notice of the claim filed, as noted, on May 24, 1976. It is on a form devised by the county, which contains four questions, all of which were answered by plaintiff. The questions and answers are copied below.

The county rejected the claim by letter which, as relevant, stated: “A preliminary review of this matter indicates that this claim was not timely filed and it is being denied on that basis. No further action will therefore be taken on this matter.”

Discussion

Relevant to this appeal are certain provisions of the Government Code

and case authority interpreting them. The required contents of a claim are found in Government Code section 910, which does not require the claimant to state when his cause of action accrued. Section 910.4 permits the public entity to provide forms for such claims and provides that “[a] claim presented on a form provided pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be in conformity with Sections 910 and 910.2 if the claim complies substantially with the requirements of the form or with the requirements of Sections 910 and 910.2.”

Section 910.8 permits the entity to give written notice of any insufficiency of a claim within 20 days after it is presented. It then may not act on the claim for 15 days. Pursuant to section 910.6 the claimant may then amend the claim before

Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

KAUS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief