Drexler v. Petersen, 4 Cal. App. 5th 1181

Plaintiff Steve Drexler suffered chronic headaches beginning in 2006 and was treated by primary care physician Dr. Petersen and neurologist Dr. German through 2011; both doctors diagnosed tension-type headaches or musculoskeletal causes and did not order a brain MRI.
Drexler experienced intermittent arm/hand paresthesia attributed to prior trauma and carpal/ulnar nerve entrapment; Dr. German treated that as separate from the headaches.
Drexler obtained his records and consulted an attorney in January 2011 but did not file suit then; he stopped seeing Petersen after January 2011.
In late 2012–January 2013 Drexler developed new/worsening neurological symptoms (double vision, hoarseness, dysphagia, gait instability); an MRI in January 2013 revealed a large meningioma requiring emergency surgery that caused permanent neurological injuries.
Drexler filed suit in July 2013 for negligent failure/delay to diagnose the brain tumor; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5 (one-year/three-year medical-malpractice limits). The Court of Appeal reversed as to summary judgment, holding a triable fact issue existed about when "injury" first manifested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the § 340.5 limitations periods begin to run for failure-to-diagnose a preexisting, latent condition?	Drexler: injury did not occur until correct diagnosis in Jan 2013 (appreciable harm manifested when tumor progressed and caused new neurological deficits).	Defendants: injury (and suspicion of wrongdoing) occurred earlier — as early as March 2010 or Jan 2011 — because symptoms persisted and Drexler had reason to suspect malpractice when he sought records/consulted counsel.	Court: For failure-to-diagnose latent progressive conditions, "injury" under § 340.5 occurs when plaintiff first experiences appreciable harm from progression (i.e., becomes aware the preexisting condition developed into a more serious one); here a factual dispute exists so summary judgment was improper.

Larcher v. Wanless, 18 Cal.3d 646 (Cal. 1976) (defines "injury" in § 340.5 as event that starts limitations and equates meaning across the statute's periods)
Brown v. Bleiberg, 32 Cal.3d 426 (Cal. 1982) (statute runs from point appreciable harm is first manifested)
Steingart v. White, 198 Cal.App.3d 406 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (in failure-to-diagnose of latent cancer, injury found to arise when cancer was discovered, not at initial benign diagnosis)
Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1983) (for undiagnosed preexisting conditions, injury accrues when condition develops into a more serious problem)
McGraw v. United States, 281 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) (accrual requires plaintiff know or have reason to know of the preexisting condition; mere worsening is not enough)