Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/49-cal-3d-699-609223674
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:05:59+00:00

Document:
49 Cal.3d 699, S001352, Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist.
Party Name: Paula E. PHILLIPS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DESERT HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.
Judge Panel: LUCAS, C.J., and MOSK, BROUSSARD, PANELLI, EAGLESON and KENNARD, JJ., concur.
DESERT HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent.
Supreme Court of California, In Bank.
[263 Cal.Rptr. 120] Tanzer, [780 P.2d 350] Rosato & Samuels, Ellen Kamon, Cary S. Samuels, Ralph L. Rosato, Beverly Hills, Haines, Russ, McMurry & de Recat and Craig J. de Recat, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Horvitz, Levy & Amerian, Encino, Merrill & Neiswender, Redlands, Thompson & Colegate, Riverside, David S. Ettinger, [263 Cal.Rptr. 121] Thomas M. Brown, David M. Axelrad, Grant Marylander and Michelle L. Stern, Encino, for defendant and respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained defendant's demurrer. Therefore, under settled law, we assume the truth of all properly pleaded material allegations of the complaint ( Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330; Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496, 86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216) and give it a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and its parts in their context ( Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58).
advice of her doctors, she underwent a bilateral mastectomy and reconstructive surgery. Mrs. Phillips and her husband, also a plaintiff, allege that the surgery was both medically unnecessary and negligently performed and that as a result she developed complications, including gangrene. Plaintiffs further allege that, notwithstanding the unsuccessful surgery, Mrs. Phillips was released from the hospital on October 2, 1983, without being informed of the nature or extent of her condition. As a result, [263 Cal.Rptr. 122] plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Phillips has been compelled to seek extensive additional medical treatment, including surgical intervention.
[780 P.2d 352] On April 6, 1984 (205 days after the surgery and 185 days after Mrs. Phillips's release from the hospital), plaintiffs' counsel mailed to the hospital a notice (hereafter 364 notice) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 364, subdivision (a), which requires potential medical malpractice plaintiffs to notify health care providers of their intent to sue 90 days prior to filing a complaint.
complaint named as defendants Mrs. Phillips's treating physicians and the hospital.
The hospital demurred to the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action because they did not allege compliance with the claim presentation requirements of the act.
Before the demurrer was scheduled to be heard, plaintiffs filed without leave of court a first amended complaint. (Code Civ.Proc., § 472 [prior to trial of issue of law thereon, pleading may be amended once of course after demurrer filed].) In the first amended complaint, plaintiffs attempted to remedy the asserted defect by stating, " Plaintiffs have complied with the provisions of Government Code § 900, et seq., " and by attaching and incorporating by reference applications they had recently sent to the state and county for leave to present a late claim. According to the amended complaint, the hospital's demurrer was the first indication to plaintiffs that the hospital was a public entity.
The amended complaint claimed the hospital was estopped from asserting any defenses based upon plaintiffs' failure to comply with the claim presentation requirements. The alleged ground of estoppel was that the hospital had attempted to conceal its identity as a public entity and had not complied with section 7530 (requiring public entities to identify themselves as such by so stating on their " letterhead stationery" and business cards).
The hospital demurred to the first amended complaint on the same ground relied upon in demurring to the original complaint, to wit, plaintiffs' alleged lack of compliance with the act. The demurrer stated that claims were required to be presented to the hospital's governing board.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and subsequently dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed from the order of dismissal and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Plaintiffs then petitioned for review. [263 Cal.Rptr. 123] We granted review and transferred the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Foster v. McFadden (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 943, 106 Cal.Rptr. 685 and sections 910.8, 911 and 911.3. The [780 P.2d 353] Court of Appeal subsequently rendered a second opinion in which it reaffirmed its initial judgment and distinguished the instant case from Foster v. McFadden, supra. We again granted review and now reverse.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 472
 § 900
 v. 
 v.