Claiming Later Complications From an Accident Injury
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed October 14, 2023
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
An automobile accident caused a broken left femur that over time turned into a chronic bone infection called chronic osteomyelitis.
Attorney Answer
Yes. A complication that grows out of the original injury is part of the same claim, not a separate one — and California's damages statute is written in a way that covers exactly this situation, including consequences nobody could have predicted at the time.
Two statutes do the work. Liability starts with Civil Code § 1714(a): "Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself."
The measure of what gets paid is Civil Code § 3333: "For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code, is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not." That last clause is the one that answers your question. A chronic bone infection that developed out of a fracture caused by the crash is detriment proximately caused by the crash, and the statute does not ask whether anyone saw it coming.
What that leaves is a medical question, not a legal one. Someone has to establish the chain: the collision caused the fracture, and the fracture — or the surgery and hardware used to treat it — led to the osteomyelitis. That link comes from treating physicians and the records, and it is the part an insurer will contest.
Two cautions. First, if any share of fault falls on you, California is a pure comparative fault state: recovery is reduced only to the extent your own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978). A share of fault reduces the claim; it never bars it.
Second, timing. If the infection traces to how the fracture was treated rather than to the crash, a claim against a health care provider runs on a different statute — Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5, which sets three years from the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever comes first. Whether a complication that surfaced later changes when a clock started is fact-specific, and it is not something to work out on your own.
What you can do
1. Ask each treating physician to document in the chart the connection between the original fracture and the osteomyelitis diagnosis. A clear note written now is worth more than an expert opinion later.
2. Collect the complete records from the day of the crash forward — emergency department, surgery, imaging, infectious-disease consults — along with every bill and explanation of benefits.
3. Keep a written record of work missed, treatment days, and out-of-pocket costs. Those are recoverable under § 3333 and are what people most often fail to document.
4. Tell the insurer handling the claim, in writing, that treatment is ongoing and the injury has not resolved.
5. Do not sign a release while treatment continues without asking a local lawyer first. A release generally closes the claim for good, including the parts that have not shown up yet.
6. If a health plan or public program has paid for the treatment, keep every notice it sends about repayment.
7. Ask a local lawyer whether the infection points at the crash, at the treatment, or at both — the deadlines are different, and that question decides which one applies.
Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.
⏱ Time limits apply. A claim arising from the collision runs on Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1: "Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another." A claim against a health care provider runs instead on § 340.5. When each clock started, and whether a later-appearing complication affects it, depends on your facts — have a local attorney review this promptly rather than working from a general rule.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978) — Cal. Supreme Court
Cited for the reduced-in-proportion-not-eliminated point, which the text of Civ. Code § 1714(a) does not state and which rule 9 requires on a personal-injury row.
*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Courts & Legal Aid in California
- File or look up a case through the California Courts.
- Get free civil legal help from LawHelpCA.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a personal injury claim include complications that appear months later?
Yes. Civil Code § 3333 sets the measure of tort damages as the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether it could have been anticipated or not. A complication that develops out of the original injury is part of the same claim rather than a new one. The contested part is usually medical proof of the connection, which comes from treating physicians and the records, not from the legal rule.
Does being partly at fault reduce a California injury award?
It reduces it in proportion and does not eliminate it. California is a pure comparative fault state; Civil Code § 1714(a) is the statutory root, and the California Supreme Court has stated the effect directly — recovery is reduced only to the extent the plaintiff's own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978).
What deadline applies to a claim against a doctor rather than a driver?
A different one. Code of Civil Procedure § 340.5 governs claims for professional negligence against a health care provider: three years after the date of injury, or one year after the plaintiff discovers or through reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first. That displaces the ordinary two-year period in § 335.1, and the one-year discovery branch can expire well before the three-year outside limit.