|
4421 Although the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) classifies a veterinarian as a health care provider, an action for fraud against a veterinarian based on the allegation that he advised plaintiff that a horse was suitable for plaintiff's purpose, and seeking the purchase price of the horse and costs of its care, is not an action for personal injury or property damage, so the requirement that plaintiff seek leave of the court before including a claim for punitive damages does not apply to it; for the same reason, the applicable statute of limitations is the one for fraud, rather than for the professional negligence of a health care provider.CitationMERCADO v SUPERIOR COURT (Veterinarian) 148 CA4 711 [See: CCP 425.13, 340.5, 338; Williamson v Prida 75 CA4 1417, T/AT 12/99; Palmer v Superior Court 103 CA4 953, T/AT 12/02]
|
|
