The statute of limitations in California medical malpractice cases runs three years from the date of injury or one year from the date the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the facts constituting the cause of action, whichever expires first (Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5). These periods interact in ways that produce recurring summary judgment fights over whether a plaintiff's limitations clock started earlier than the plaintiff claims. Godshall v. Peterson (2026, 4th Appellate Dist., Div. 1, D086572), decided September 2, 2026, provides useful clarity on the discovery rule's application to post-surgical complication cases where symptoms appear but causation is not apparent to the patient.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, a woman employed as an office support technician, sought treatment from an orthopedic surgeon in 2016 for carpal tunnel syndrome symptoms in her right hand. The surgeon performed the procedure. In 2017, the plaintiff experienced postoperative symptoms. The surgeon moved for summary judgment, arguing that the 2017 postoperative symptoms were sufficient to trigger the one-year discovery period under section 340.5, and that the plaintiff's complaint, filed after the period the defense calculated from the 2017 symptoms, was therefore time-barred.
The San Diego County Superior Court agreed and granted summary judgment for the surgeon.
The Appellate Decision
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed. The appellate court held that the existence of postoperative symptoms, standing alone, is not necessarily sufficient to trigger the discovery period. The discovery rule requires that the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known facts that would put a reasonable person on inquiry about whether a cause of action existed, meaning not merely that something was wrong, but that the wrong might have been caused by someone else's conduct.
The court found that triable issues of material fact remained as to when the plaintiff's injury became sufficiently appreciable and connected to potentially actionable conduct to start the limitations clock. Postoperative pain or other complications following surgery are not necessarily perceived by a patient as the result of malpractice, as opposed to a recognized risk of the procedure. Whether the plaintiff had reason to suspect negligence at the time of the 2017 symptoms, versus simply experiencing a known surgical complication, was a question for the jury rather than a legal conclusion at the summary judgment stage.
What Godshall Confirms About Section 340.5 Discovery
The holding reinforces established principles about how the discovery rule operates in post-surgical med-mal cases, but its procedural posture (reversing a grant of summary judgment) makes it immediately useful as authority for resisting early dismissal of cases where the defense asserts the limitations clock started at the first sign of complications. Several practice points follow:
- Symptoms alone are not notice of negligence. A patient who experiences pain, limited function, or adverse results after surgery has not necessarily discovered a cause of action. The discovery period requires awareness of facts suggesting that the adverse outcome may have resulted from someone's actionable conduct, not merely that the outcome was bad.
- The inquiry notice standard is objective but contextual. Whether a reasonable patient would have connected their symptoms to potential malpractice at a given point in time depends on what a patient in that specific situation would know, not on an abstract standard divorced from the medical context. Surgical complications that are disclosed as risks at consent are not automatically signs of malpractice to a reasonable patient.
- Summary judgment on limitations is often premature. Godshall confirms that when there are facts in dispute about what the plaintiff knew and when, and what a reasonable person would have suspected, the limitations question goes to the jury. Defense motions that conflate the existence of symptoms with the discovery of a cause of action should be resisted on this authority.
Implications for Medical Malpractice Intake
Godshall is a reminder that the section 340.5 limitations analysis in a post-surgical complications case cannot be done mechanically from the surgery date or the first post-operative complaint. The proper analysis requires reviewing the medical records for the specific content of physician-patient communications about the symptoms' source, whether any provider suggested the complications might reflect a procedure problem, and the plaintiff's lay understanding of their condition at each point in time.
This is particularly important at intake, where the limitations question may initially look clean (the surgery was recent) but where a careful review of the post-operative notes shows that a prior provider told the patient in unambiguous terms that the complications were the result of surgical error. In that scenario, the limitations clock runs from that communication regardless of when the patient first consulted a plaintiff lawyer, and the case that looked fresh at intake may already be time-barred.
Equally, Godshall is useful for cases where the limitations clock appears to have expired but the plaintiff has a genuine argument that the connection between their symptoms and potential negligence was not reasonably discoverable until a much later date. The decision strengthens the argument that a triable issue of fact on limitations requires a jury determination rather than summary adjudication.
For more on recent California appellate decisions shaping PI practice, see case law and settlements resources. The medical malpractice statute of limitations analysis interacts with the expert certification requirements addressed at medical malpractice practice resources.