Court Opinion

ID: 9715483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:06:51.362085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.217074
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(dissenting). I must respectfully dissent from the majority. An accelerated judgment based on the statute of limitations is proper where material facts are not disputed regarding the date that plaintiffs should have discovered the existence of a malpractice claim. We have here a classic illustration supporting malpractice. However, the undisputed facts are also a classic illustration that the plaintiffs knew or discovered the malpractice within days or, at most, within several months following the alleged August 1, 1978, malpractice date. On the date that the complaint was filed, September 16, 1981, the period of limitations had long since run. The accelerated judgment should be affirmed.