Jones v. Queen of the Valley Hospital

Decision Date20 March 1979
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesCharles F. JONES, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. QUEEN OF the VALLEY HOSPITAL et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 54546.

Gruber & Kelman and Gerald Goldfarb, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Hagenbaugh & Murphy, William D. Stewart and Neil R. Gunny, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

KINGSLEY, Acting Presiding Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment adverse to them in an action for wrongful death. We reverse.

On the evening of June 22, 1975, plaintiffs' 19-month old son developed a rash and a high fever. They took the child to defendant hospital where he was examined by defendant doctor. The doctor diagnosed the condition as "flu" and told plaintiffs to take the child home and consult their family doctor in the morning. The next morning the child's condition had become worse and plaintiffs returned to the hospital with him. By the time they reached the hospital, the child had died of meingococcemia. The hospital personnel did not tell plaintiffs the cause of death but, later that day, after consulting their family doctor, they were told the cause and that doctor expressed concern over the quality of service rendered by defendant. In September of 1975, plaintiffs consulted a firm of attorneys about an action against defendants. That firm, after examining the hospital records, advised plaintiffs that they had no cause of action. The plaintiffs, in early 1976, consulted another firm of attorneys who, after submitting the hospital records and the nature of the death to a physician, advised plaintiffs that, in their opinion, a cause of action did exist. This action, filed on January 20, 1977, followed.

On those facts, the trial court granted defendants a summary judgment based on the statute of limitations from which judgment plaintiffs have appealed. We reverse.

The applicable statute is section 340.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, in pertinent part, reads as follows:

"In an action for injury or death against a health care provider based upon such person's alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first."

The Supreme Court in Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 132 Cal.Rptr. 657, 553 P.2d 1129, interpreted that provision as follows (at pp. 96-97, 132 Cal.Rptr. at p. 660, 553 P.2d at p. 1132):

" . . . it had been clear that the limitations period did not commence until the plaintiff either (1) actually discovered his injury and its negligent cause or (2) could have discovered injury and cause through the exercise of reasonable diligence."

Further saying (at p. 101, 132 Cal.Rptr. at p. 663, 553 P.2d at p. 1135):

"The applicable principle has been expressed as follows: 'when the plaintiff has notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person On inquiry, or Has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his investigation . . . the statute commences to run.' " (Italics in original.)

The issue before us, thus, is whether plaintiffs knew, or by reasonable inquiry should have known, prior to January 20, 1976, that defendants were guilty of a Negligent misdiagnosis. In support of the judgment, defendants rely on three cases, all antedating Sanchez, for the proposition that the statute began to run when, on June 23, 1975, the plaintiffs knew of the misdiagnosis. We conclude that none of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Gutierrez v. Mofid
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 26 Septiembre 1985
    ...she had a basis for suit after all. Her assertions are supported by one Court of Appeal decision, Jones v. Queen of the Valley Hospital (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 700, 703, 153 Cal.Rptr. 662. However, the uniform California rule is that a limitations period dependent on discovery of the cause of ......
  • Brown v. Bleiberg
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 27 Septiembre 1982
    ...the possibility that baby's blindness was due to administration of oxygen to him at birth]; Jones v. Queen of the Valley Hospital (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 700, 702-703, 153 Cal.Rptr. 662 [issue of fact as to when plaintiffs should have known defendants' misdiagnosis of child's meningococcemia a......
  • Duncan v. Spivak
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 6 Diciembre 2001
    ...91 Cal.App.3d 417, 424, 154 Cal.Rptr. 146 is inappropriate in that that language was derived from Jones v. Queen of the Valley Hospital (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 700, 153 Cal.Rptr. 662, which was disapproved in Gutierrez v. Mofid, supra, 39 Cal.3d at page 902, 218 Cal.Rptr. 313, 705 P.2d 886. Th......
  • Baright v. Willis
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 26 Enero 1984
    ...regarding facts which might constitute malpractice is entitled to rely on the advice received. (Jones v. Queen of the Valley Hospital (1980) 90 Cal.App.3d 700, 703, 153 Cal.Rptr. 662; see Leaf v. City of San Mateo (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 398, 408, 163 Cal.Rptr. 711. ["Where, as in this case, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT