## Facts

- Annie Fuller underwent bladder lift surgery at Long Beach Memorial Hospital on November 13, 1995.
- Following surgery, Fuller suffered a significant nerve injury that progressed to paralysis/marked weakness in her right lower extremity.
- Physicians evaluated Fuller postoperatively; while possible neurological mechanisms were suggested, she was not told a specific cause attributing fault to anesthesia or a particular provider.
- Dr. James Tucker served as the anesthesiologist; his name was not on the anesthesia consent form Fuller signed, and Fuller was illiterate and did not read the form or have anesthesia risks discussed with her.
- Tucker’s name appeared in medical chart documents, including anesthesia evaluation materials and a postoperative evaluation regarding her weakness.
- Fuller timely filed a medical malpractice complaint alleging negligent injection and/or positioning in preparation for and during surgery, naming Doe defendants under California Code of Civil Procedure § 474.
- After the statute of limitations ran, Fuller amended the complaint to substitute Tucker for a Doe defendant, asserting she had been ignorant of his identity and of facts supporting a claim against him when she filed.

## Issues

1. Whether Fuller’s post-limitations amendment substituting Dr. Tucker for a Doe defendant satisfied Code of Civil Procedure § 474 so that it related back to the original filing date and avoided the statute of limitations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered for Tucker.
- The court held the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard by focusing on what Fuller should have known or could have discovered through investigation.
- The court concluded § 474’s “ignorance” inquiry turns on actual ignorance of the defendant’s identity or liability-creating facts at filing, not constructive knowledge from available records or general assumptions about who participated in surgery.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings because the amendment related back and the claim against Tucker was not time-barred.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 474, a plaintiff may name Doe defendants when actually ignorant of a defendant’s identity and/or facts giving rise to a cause of action against that defendant at the time of filing, and later substitute the true name upon discovery.
- If § 474 is properly invoked, substitution of the true name relates back to the date of the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes.
- “Ignorance” is not defeated merely because the plaintiff generally knows a category of professional (e.g., an anesthesiologist) likely participated in the procedure.
- “Ignorance” is not defeated merely because the defendant’s name appears in medical records that could have been obtained or reviewed earlier; § 474 does not impose a reasonable-investigation/constructive-knowledge test.

## Conclusion

The court held that Doe substitution under § 474 is governed by the plaintiff’s actual ignorance at the time of filing, not by what the plaintiff should have discovered from medical records or assumptions about surgical staffing, and therefore Fuller’s amendment substituting Tucker related back and was not barred by limitations.


Fuller v. Tucker, 84 Cal. App. 4th 1163, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)