A recent court filing reveals a contentious medical malpractice case hinging on the interpretation of statutory deadlines. Plaintiff Georgina Montano filed a complaint against Dr. William Ellis and the Eye Center of Northern California, Inc., dba Ellis Laser Medical Centers, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, on July 10, 2024.
The case centers around an alleged botched laser eye surgery performed by Dr. Ellis on March 5, 2021. Montano claims that during the procedure, she experienced severe pain and heard comments about bleeding from either Dr. Ellis or his assistant. Following the surgery, Montano reported blurred vision and intense pain which led to an emergency room visit. She continues to suffer from these symptoms along with constant headaches.
On February 15, 2022, Montano served notices of intent to sue to both Dr. Ellis and the Eye Center within 90 days before the statute of limitations expired. However, when she officially filed her lawsuit on June 1, 2022—17 days after what she believed was a tolled statute period—the trial court dismissed her claim as untimely based on its interpretation that Section 364(d) merely extended rather than tolled the statute of limitations.
Montano's appeal argues that Section 364(d) should be interpreted as tolling the statute of limitations for an additional 90 days when notice is served within the last 90 days before expiration. This interpretation aligns with previous rulings in Woods v. Young (1991) and Russell v. Stanford University Hospital (1997), where it was determined that such notices effectively pause the countdown until after this period has elapsed.
The plaintiff seeks a reversal of the trial court’s decision and requests that her medical malpractice claim be deemed timely filed under this broader interpretation of Section 364(d). The appellate court agreed with Montano’s argument, stating that interpreting Section 364(d) literally would defeat its purpose and hinder negotiated resolutions outside formal litigation processes.
Representing Montano are attorneys from law firms whose names were not disclosed in this document. The judgment was reversed by Acting Presiding Judge Danner along with Judges Lie and Bromberg concurring.