Daily Blast January 12, 2015

The Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six (Ventura) issued an opinion in Coastal Surgical Institute v. Blevins (Jan. 12, 2015, B254787) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing whether Insurance Code section 11583, which provides that the applicable statute of limitations is tolled when advance or partial payment is made to an injured and unrepresented person without notifying him of the applicable limitations period, applies to a medical malpractice action. In a case of first impression, the court held “that the tolling provisions of section 11583 apply to the one-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions.” (Slip opn., p. 1.)

The case arose out of a surgery performed on plaintiff’s knee at defendant’s surgical facility. (Slip opn., p. 2.) After the surgery, respondent’s knee became infected. Defendant paid plaintiff $4,118.23 for the medical expenses plaintiff incurred in treating the knee infection. Defendant did not give plaintiff, who was not represented by counsel at the time of payment, written notice of the applicable statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action. More than 15 months later, plaintiff sued defendant. The trial court, relying on Insurance Code section 11583, ruled that the one-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 was tolled by defendant’s payment of plaintiff’s medical expenses. The jury then rendered a special verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (Ibid.)

On appeal from the judgment, defendant contended that section 11583 does not apply to medical malpractice actions and that the court erroneously denied its motion to conduct a bifurcated jury trial on its statute of limitations affirmative defense. (Slip opn., p. 3.) The Court of Appeal disagreed holding that section 11583 applies to medical malpractice actions. (Id. at p. 2.) According to the court, “the tolling provisions of section 11583 can extend the one-year period of section 340.5 up to a maximum of three years from the date of injury.” (Id. at p. 4.) Thus, defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on its statute of limitations affirmative defense. (Id. at p. 5.) The court emphasized that the maximum three-year limitations period was not altered by its holding. (Ibid.)