California’s medical malpractice statute of limitations, defined under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5, establishes a dual-deadline framework requiring claims to be filed within one year of discovery or within three years of the injury, whichever occurs first. These requirements operate alongside other state-level rules that influence medical malpractice litigation, including California’s statutory limits on noneconomic damages, which were substantially revised in 2023 after decades without adjustment.
This article explains California’s timing requirements for medical malpractice actions, including the discovery rule, the three-year statute of repose, qualifying tolling doctrines, and recent judicial interpretations that affect how courts apply § 340.5.
Core Rules for Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations in California
California’s medical malpractice limitations framework is governed by Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5, which establishes multiple timing rules that apply depending on claim type, discovery, and statutory cutoffs.
Dual-Deadline Structure
Medical malpractice actions must be filed:
- Within one year after the plaintiff discovers the injury or should have discovered it through reasonable diligence.
- Within three years of the date of injury, whichever occurs first.
These rules apply simultaneously, and the earlier deadline always controls.
Three-Year Statute of Repose
The three-year outer limit operates as an absolute repose period, meaning it cannot be extended unless a statutory exception applies. Only three exceptions can extend the repose period:
- Fraud
- Intentional concealment
- Foreign objects with no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose
Outside these narrow circumstances, claims may be barred even if the plaintiff did not yet know the injury was caused by negligence.
Discovery Rule Requirements
Under California’s discovery principles, a claim accrues when a plaintiff:
- Knows they suffered an injury.
- Has reason to suspect the injury was caused by negligence, not merely that an adverse medical outcome occurred.
The discovery rule focuses on constructive notice—what a reasonably diligent plaintiff should have known, not only what they actually knew.
Scope of Professional Negligence
The statute applies only to “professional negligence,” defined as:
- A negligent act or omission by a licensed healthcare provider.
- Occurring in the rendering of professional services.
- That proximately causes injury or wrongful death.
This distinction determines whether the claim is governed by § 340.5 or by standard personal injury limitation periods under California law.
When § 340.5 Does Not Apply
The medical malpractice limitations framework does not apply when:
- The conduct does not involve medical judgment, and
- The act is considered ordinary negligence rather than professional negligence.
In those situations, the standard two-year personal injury limitations period under CCP § 335.1 applies.
Tolling Exceptions That Affect Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations in California
California recognizes six major tolling exceptions that can extend or suspend the medical malpractice statute of limitations, each with specific requirements and restrictive judicial interpretation.
- Minority Tolling
California provides limited tolling for minors compared to general personal injury rules.
- Children under age six: Claims must be filed
- within three years of the wrongful act, or
- before the child’s eighth birthday, whichever offers more time.
- Ages six to seventeen: No tolling beyond the standard three-year limit.
These limits reflect a stricter approach than other tort claims, which typically toll until age eighteen.
- Incapacity Tolling (CCP § 352)
Tolling may apply when a plaintiff is legally incapacitated at the time the claim accrues. To qualify, the plaintiff must show:
- A mental condition that prevented understanding legal rights.
- Inability to take legal action or direct counsel.
- Specific factual allegations supporting the incapacity.
- Medical or documentary support for the claimed condition.
General or conclusory statements of incapacity are insufficient.
- Fraudulent Concealment
This doctrine tolls both the one-year discovery period and the three-year statute of repose, but only when the defendant actively prevented the plaintiff from discovering the claim.
Elements generally include:
- An affirmative act to conceal material facts
- Knowledge of the concealed facts
- Intent to prevent discovery
- Plaintiff’s excusable ignorance
- A causal link between concealment and delayed filing
This doctrine is applied strictly and must be supported with particularized facts.
- Foreign Object Exception
This statutory exception applies when a foreign object with no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose remains in a patient’s body.
- Traditionally applied to surgical sponges or instruments.
- Also encompasses devices or materials that originally had a purpose but no longer serve one and cause harm.
- When it applies, the statute may be tolled until discovery of the object.
This is one of the few exceptions capable of extending the repose period.
- Continuous Treatment Doctrine (Judicial Doctrine)
This doctrine tolls limitations while the plaintiff is receiving continuous care for the same condition from the same provider. Tolling generally requires:
- Ongoing treatment from the same provider or their agents.
- Treatment for the same underlying condition.
- A continuous, unbroken treatment relationship.
- Difficulty identifying when the alleged injury occurred due to ongoing care.
This doctrine is judicially created and not codified in § 340.5.
How California Courts Interpret Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Rules
Recent appellate decisions provide critical guidance on timing requirements and claim characterization that affects statute of limitations analysis.
Kernan v. Regents of the University of California — Discovery Rule Timing
The First District Court of Appeal in Kernan v. Regents of the University of California (2022) reversed summary judgment for defendants, holding that discovery of injury alone does not trigger the statute of limitations.
The court distinguished between knowledge of an adverse outcome (fetal death following a medical procedure) and knowledge that the outcome resulted from negligence. Factual disputes about when the plaintiff became subjectively suspicious of negligent causation precluded summary judgment on limitations grounds.
Flores v. Sharp Grossmont Hospital — Incapacity and Fraudulent Concealment Tolling
The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Flores v. Sharp Grossmont Hospital (2021) held that incapacity tolling requires detailed factual allegations showing the nature and duration of the incapacity and how it prevented filing or understanding legal rights, supported by medical evidence.
The court also clarified that fraudulent concealment requires affirmative acts that prevent the discovery of the claim, as withholding records alone is insufficient. Courts consistently demand particularized facts for tolling, and when disputes exist over discovery timing, summary judgment is generally inappropriate.
Neel v. Magana — Fraudulent Concealment Requirements
In Neel v. Magana (1971), the California Supreme Court outlined the foundational elements required to toll the statute of limitations based on fraudulent concealment.
The court held that tolling applies only when a defendant takes affirmative steps to conceal material facts, intends to prevent discovery, and causes the plaintiff’s excusable ignorance. Mere nondisclosure or delayed record production is insufficient. Courts rely on this framework when evaluating whether concealment justifies delayed filing under § 340.5.
Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. — Continuous Treatment Doctrine
The California Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc. clarified the standards governing the continuous treatment doctrine.
The court held that tolling applies when a patient remains under ongoing care from the same provider for the same underlying condition and the continuity of treatment makes it difficult to pinpoint when the alleged injury occurred. Fragmented or intermittent treatment typically does not qualify. The decision provides the most current guidance on how courts determine whether continued care suspends the running of limitations under California law.
Recent Updates to Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Laws in California
No legislative amendments to California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5 were enacted between 2023 and 2025, despite significant reforms to MICRA's damage cap provisions through Assembly Bill 35. The existing one-year/three-year framework remains unchanged.
The most significant recent development occurred through judicial interpretation rather than legislative amendment:
The California Supreme Court's decision in Gutierrez v. Tostado (2025) clarified that MICRA's protections—including its statute of limitations provisions—apply only to claims involving professional negligence requiring breach of professional healthcare standards, not to ordinary negligence by healthcare providers or their employees.
This distinction creates opportunities to avoid MICRA's more restrictive statute of limitations timing requirements in appropriate cases, particularly those involving third parties injured by healthcare entities' ordinary conduct, such as negligent vehicle operation during patient transport. This decision does not alter § 340.5’s timing rules but clarifies when the statute applies.
California’s broader civil framework also includes limitations on punitive damages, which influence case valuation and strategic decisions in medical malpractice and related negligence actions.
What This Means for Medical Malpractice Filing Deadlines in California
California’s medical malpractice framework imposes layered filing deadlines based on discovery dates, absolute time limits, and the distinction between professional negligence under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5 and ordinary negligence claims. Each pathway carries different timing consequences, with limited tolling available only when supported by specific facts.
Compliance depends on accurate identification of treatment timelines, injury discovery points, and supporting medical records. Legal AI tools support this work by organizing records, building defensible chronologies, and helping firms track statutory deadlines tied to case facts.
Explore Tavrn’s legal technology solutions.
.webp)
.webp)
