Silverbrand v. Co. of LA 4/21/06 CA2/8

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B176239

Case Date: 08/16/2006

Preview:Filed 4/21/06 Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

PETER SILVERBRAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B176239 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MC 014605)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Frank Y. Jackson, Judge. Dismissed.

Peter Silverbrand, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Thever & Associates, Ronald A. Chavez; Pollack, Vida & Fisher, Girard Fisher, and Daniel P. Barer for Defendants and Respondents.

******

Peter Silverbrand, a state prison inmate, appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of respondents1 on the ground his medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Appellant delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities the last day to appeal the judgment, and it was not received by the county clerk until after the last day for appeal had passed. We hold the "prison-delivery" doctrine does not apply to a late filing of a notice to appeal in a civil case and therefore dismiss the appeal as untimely. FACTS In May 2001, appellant, an inmate of state prison since 1994, underwent a hemorrhoidectomy at the County's High Desert Hospital. Starting in January 2002, appellant presented four government claims to the County asserting medical malpractice in connection with his hemorrhoidectomy and related treatment. The County denied appellant's claims and, in each instance, informed appellant he had six months in which to file suit after such denial. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant filed a complaint against respondents and others on March 27, 2003.2 Respondents moved for summary judgment based on appellant's failure to timely file his complaint within six months of the County's rejection of his claim.3 (Gov. Code,

Respondents are the County of Los Angeles (County) and its healthcare provider employees, Viswanatham Piratla, M.D., and Cheryl Napier. Appellant claimed to have first submitted the summons and complaint to the superior court clerk for filing in December 2002. Actions against a public entity and its employees are governed by the California Tort Claims Act. (Gov. Code,

Download Silverbrand v. Co. of LA 4/21/06 CA2/8.pdf