Recovering for a Bone Infection That Followed a Crash 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
Got into an automobile crash. My left femur was broken, and over time I developed a chronic bone infection called chronic osteomyelitis.
Attorney Answer
A complication that surfaces later — including a chronic bone infection that grows out of the broken femur or out of the surgery used to fix it — belongs to the same claim as the crash, not to a separate one. The catch is the opposite of what most people expect: the later diagnosis usually does not buy you more time, and the deadline is measured from the crash.
Start with what the crash claim covers. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 sets the measure: "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." Those last words carry the point. A driver who breaks your femur does not get credit because the infection that followed was unlikely or unforeseeable. What matters is whether the osteomyelitis traces back through an unbroken chain to the fracture and its treatment.
The responsibility itself comes from Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a), which makes everyone responsible for an injury occasioned to another by their want of ordinary care in the management of their property or person — the statutory root of every negligence claim in California. That same section carries the qualifier that a person's own want of ordinary care counts against them, and California applies that as pure comparative fault: if part of the crash was your doing, your recovery is reduced in proportion to your share rather than wiped out.
Where the infection came out of the treatment rather than the break itself, California case law fills the gap the statute leaves. In Henry v. Superior Court, 160 Cal. App. 4th 440 (2008), the Court of Appeal restated the settled rule that the party responsible for an original injury remains responsible for additional harm arising out of the medical treatment of that injury. So it does not help the other driver to argue that a surgeon, a plate or a hospital stay is what let the infection in.
The hard part is proof, and it is medical. A chronic infection that develops months later invites the argument that something else caused it. Cultures, operative reports, imaging and a treating physician who will connect the fracture to the infection are what answer that.
What you can do
1. Ask your treating doctors to record, in the chart, how they understand the osteomyelitis to relate to the femur fracture and its treatment.
2. Collect the complete record set from the crash forward — the emergency visit, operative reports, any hardware used, follow-ups, cultures and the imaging on both the fracture and the infection.
3. Keep every bill and receipt, including antibiotics and home care, and a record of the work you have missed.
4. Ask a local attorney before giving the other driver's insurer a recorded statement or signing a broad medical authorization.
5. Ask a local attorney to review your dates right away — chronic infections often surface long after the crash, and the legal clock does not restart when they do.
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. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 gives two years for an action for injury to an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, and that period ordinarily runs from the crash rather than from the day the infection was named. Whether anything about your circumstances changes the start date is a fact question and this page cannot answer it. Take your dates to a local attorney now.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- Henry v. Superior Court, 160 Cal. App. 4th 440 (2008) — Cal. Ct. App.
The party responsible for an original injury remains responsible for additional harm arising out of the medical treatment of that injury. Cited because the osteomyelitis may have arisen out of the fracture's treatment rather than the impact, and the text of Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 does not supply that allocation — it takes a court's holding.
*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 California injury claim include a complication that develops months or years after the accident?
Generally yes, if the complication traces back to the original injury. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 measures tort damages as the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether it could have been anticipated or not. That language is why a later complication is treated as part of the same claim rather than as a new one, and why an at-fault party does not escape responsibility because the outcome was unusual. The contest is almost always about medical causation, so the treating records and a physician willing to explain the connection do most of the work.
Does a later diagnosis restart the two-year deadline in California?
Usually not. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 gives two years for an action for injury to an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, and for an obvious traumatic injury that period ordinarily runs from the incident, not from the day a complication is identified. California law measures the start date differently in some situations, and different deadlines apply to some defendants — a claim against a public entity generally has to be presented within six months under Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a). Because getting the start date wrong ends the claim, this is a question to put to a local attorney early.
Who is responsible if medical treatment for an accident injury makes things worse?
In California the party responsible for the original injury generally remains responsible for the additional harm that arises out of treating that injury; *Henry v. Superior Court*, 160 Cal. App. 4th 440 (2008), is a modern statement of that rule. It means an at-fault driver cannot shift responsibility onto the surgery or the hospital stay that the injury made necessary. It does not decide whether a separate claim against a provider exists, which is a different question with its own, shorter deadlines under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5.