The California law provides that in medical malpractice actions, an alternative statute of limitations authorizes suit one year after plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the “injury.” [CCP § 340.5; see ¶ 5:159 ff.] [5:109]. If plaintiff’s reasonable and diligent investigation discloses one kind of wrongdoing when plaintiff’s injury was actually caused by tortious conduct of a wholly different sort, the limitations period does not accrue on the latter until the time that wrongdoing is actually discovered (or should have been discovered). [Fox v. Ethicon Endo–Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35C4th 797, 813–815, 27 CR3d 661, 672–673] [5:111.1]. However, a cause of action that arose in another state (or foreign country) and that is time-barred under the laws of that jurisdiction may not be maintained in California (except by a plaintiff who has been a California citizen since the action accrued; see ¶ 5:197.28). [CCP § 361; see McCann v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 C4th 68, 85, 105 CR3d 378, 389; Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003) 108 CA4th 370, 378, 133 CR2d 376, 382] [5:197.20]. Its purpose is to prevent forum-shopping by out-of-state plaintiffs [5:197.21]. In one case, [5:197.23] A Montana resident succumbed to lung cancer in 1995 after working in and around a building that was constructed with asbestos. The heirs brought suit in California against the general contractor, who completed the building in 1968. Although several defendants were not amenable to service in Montana and the heirs selected California “to obtain complete recovery,” the suit was dismissed because Montana’s relevant statute of repose barred suits against a contractor brought more than 10 years after completion of construction. [Giest v. Sequoia Ventures,Inc., supra, 83 CA4th at 302–306, 99 CR2d at 477–480] [5:197.23].
Moreover, the appropriate standard of care required of a medical professional is not a matter of common lay knowledge. Therefore, except in cases of “egregious” medical negligence (¶ 2:386 ff.), expert medical testimony is required in medical malpractice actions to establish the standard of care required of a physician (or other health care provider) under the circumstances. [See Flowers v. Torrance Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr. (1994) 8 C4th 992, 1001, 35 CR2d 685, 690—[2:357].I suggest that you seek personal assistance from a lawyer in order to assist you with filing a personal injury claim.