Goscila v. Salinas Valley Mem. Healthcare System

<h1>Goscila v. Salinas Valley Mem. Healthcare System</h1> Filed 8/17/06 Goscila v. Salinas Valley Mem. Healthcare System CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JOHN A. GOSCILA, II, H028594 H029163 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Monterey County Superior Court v. Nos. M72255, M72963) SALINAS VALLEY MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, et al., Defendants and Respondents. _____________________________________/ Appellant John A. Goscila, II seeks review of an order denying his petition for relief from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4, which requires the presentation of a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">tort claim</a> to a public entity prior to filing <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">suit for damages</a> against the entity.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Appellant seeks relief from the claims statute so that he may pursue his <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">medical malpractice</a> action against respondents Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System and Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital. He also appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained respondents' demurrer to his medical malpractice action.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> We conclude that there is a triable issue of fact as to the accrual date of appellant's cause of action, and thus reverse. I. Statement of the Case On June 21, 2004, appellant presented a governmental tort claim to respondents. The claim was based on alleged negligence that occurred during his hospital stay from June 26, 2003 to July 14, 2003. Appellant asserted that his cause of action had not accrued until June 14, 2004, when he first suspected that his injuries were caused by respondents' negligence. On the same date, appellant also presented an application for leave to present a late claim to respondents. Assuming that his cause of action accrued on June 26, 2003, appellant stated that he had failed to discover the nexus between respondents' negligence and his injuries, because he had â€