Fox underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery and post-surgical treatment. 2d 298, to the extent that it holds to the contrary. We disapprove the decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. In that case, the statute of limitations for that cause of action will be tolled until such time as a reasonable investigation would have revealed its factual basis. We conclude that, under the delayed discovery rule, a cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause, unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that a reasonable investigation at that time would not have revealed a factual basis for that particular cause of action. 2d 298( Bristol-Myers Squibb), that "hen a plaintiff has cause to sue based on knowledge or suspicion of negligence the statute starts to run as to all potential defendants." We granted review to determine whether such an allegation is sufficient to withstand demurrer, or whether we should adopt the bright-line rule announced in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Plaintiff alleges that she could not, with reasonable investigation, have discovered earlier that the medical device might have caused her injury. Ethicon filed a demurrer raising a statute of limitations defense, to which plaintiff responded by relying upon the delayed discovery rule most recently discussed by this court in Norgart v. Fox then amended her complaint to add a products liability cause of action against the manufacturer of the device, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. In the course of discovery, Fox received information that a medical device used during the surgery may have malfunctioned, causing her injury. Fox filed a medical malpractice action after gastric bypass surgery performed on her resulted in severe complications. Gauthier, Encino, for California Medical Association, California Dental Association and California Healthcare Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Grossman, Los Angeles, for The Product *664 Liability Advisory Council, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Lazarus, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent. Arkin, Newport Beach, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.ĭrinker Biddle & Reath, Charles F. Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson and Sharon J.
Hecker, Fresno, for Plaintiff and Appellant. FOX, Plaintiff and Appellant,ĮTHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
0 kommentar(er)
