Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.


View Opinion View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy convinced the Court of Appeal to affirm summary judgment based on the MICRA statute of limitations and reject plaintiff’s arguments regarding tolling and discovery abuses.     

Plaintiff sued a medical center and doctor for medical malpractice alleging that the defendants’ negligence caused her to develop a fistula after the delivery of her child. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the MICRA statute of limitations (Code of Civ. Proc., § 340.5) because she discovered her injury more than one year before filing her lawsuit. Plaintiff appealed. 

Defendants retained Horvitz & Levy to respond to plaintiff’s appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, adopting the arguments advanced by Horvitz & Levy. The court held that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when she first suspected an injury caused by the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing (not when that injury was allegedly confirmed during the repair surgery), and uncontroverted evidence supported the trial court’s determination that plaintiff suspected a wrongful injury more than a year before filing suit. The court also rejected plaintiff’s tolling claim because no substantial evidence supported her argument that the defendants intentionally concealed the alleged malpractice and injury. The Court of Appeal further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for a fifth continuance of the summary judgment hearing.