After Partial Payment In Medical Malpractice Action, Patient Was Not Informed Of Statute Of Limitations.

After surgery, a patient suffered an infection. The bacteria that infected the patient’s knee apparently survived the sterilization process at the surgical facility. The bacteria was found on a surgical sponge. The doctor paid the patient $4,118.23 for the medical expenses he incurred for treatment of the infection. Fifteen months later, the patient sued the doctor and the facility for medical malpractice. The sponge manufacturer was added as a defendant and settled with the patient for $100,000. A jury found medical malpractice and awarded $543.034, which the court reduced to $285,114. On appeal, the doctor and surgical facility contended the trial court erroneously denied their statute of limitations contentions. The appellate court discussed Insurance Code section 11583, which provides in relevant part: “. . .Any person . . . who makes such an advance or partial payment, shall at the time of beginning payment, notify the recipient thereof in writing of the statute of limitations applicable to the cause of action which such recipient may bring against such person as a result of such injury . . . Failure to provide such written notice shall operate to toll any such statute of limitations.” The medical defendants argued that applying section 11583 in medical malpractice actions would open up a can of worms. In affirming, the appellate court said section 11583 requires no more than that the payor notify the payee in writing of the applicable statute of limitations, not the expiration date. (Blevin v. Coastal Surgical Institute (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 6; January 12, 2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1321 [182 Cal.Rptr.3d 704].)