There is one section that I'm confused about, it is listed below.

"However, if the obligation sued upon constitutes an open book account, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the last entry on the account. Code of Civil Procedure § 337(2). But an open book account becomes closed, and the statute of limitations begins to run, once the account creditor ceases to extend credit on the account and there is no further activity on the account other than payment being made. RNC, Inc. v. Tsegeletos (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 967, 972."

Does this mean that a medical debt that is 4 years old in which the consumer goes to see the same doctor 5 years later is still not past statute of limitations for medical debt?

Or is medical debt not an open book account?

Bump...

I gave the wrong example.

If a customer has a debt that is past four years yet goes to see the doctor 2 years ago, would that reset the sol for the debt that is past 4 years old?

No, unless the Dr. was carrying the account on his books as an "open" account. Once it has been turned over for collection it is no longer a CURRENT open book account.

However, if the Dr. who was owed $$ on the "old" account, carried that sum forward to the NEW charges on his books then yes, the "SOL" would be reset.

The criteria is, under Ca. statutes that the accrual date of the cause of action ( start of SOL) is the last date of payment or charge on a mutual, open and current account. This of course is mostly for credit card accounts, however it would likely apply to any type of account.

Since you saw the SAME Dr. and received services, unless he had previously written off the old account and turned it over for collections, you could likely still be sued. Even IF he had turned it over for collection, and not SOLD the account, he could take the old account back out of collections and add it to the new charges.

Thanks, just what I wanted to know.