In Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp. (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 350, the trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend on the ground the plaintiffs, a husband and wife and their minor child, had failed to file a claim within the required 100 days. The appellate court reversed, explaining that "because the question of belated discovery depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding the negligent act and the subsequent events leading to discovery, the issue is ordinarily one of fact for a court or jury to decide." (Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp., supra, 69 Cal. App. 3d at p. 356, ) The court decided that, because the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently pled belated discovery, the issue could not be settled as a matter of law and the plaintiffs' "should have the opportunity to present their proof to the trier of fact." ( Id. at p. 359.) In Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp., the Ventura County General Hospital prescribed an intrauterine device (IUD) for wife for purposes of birth control. Six months later, wife became pregnant and her child was born with birth defects. Three months after the child's birth, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued reports indicating that certain IUD's were unsafe and were being removed from the market. The parents brought a tort action against the county, alleging that they first learned of the unsafe character of IUD's four months after their child's birth--when the FDA reports were released. The county demurred on the ground that the government tort claim was not timely filed. The trial court sustained the demurrer. (Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp., supra, 69 Cal. App. 3d 354.) The Court of Appeal reversed the decision. It noted that the hospital staff had not informed the parents of a possible connection between the IUD and an abnormal birth. Thus, their failure to discover the injury until reading the FDA reports was not unreasonable and the pleadings were sufficient to raise the issue of belated discovery. (Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp., supra, 69 Cal. App. 3d at p. 359.) As to the claim filing requirement, the county argued that the parents' claim was untimely. It alleged that the cause of action had accrued at the child's birth. Accordingly, the parents should have filed an application for leave to file a late claim. The Court of Appeal considered the letter issued by the county, noting that the claim appeared to have been considered on its merits and rejected. The letter also contained a warning that "'subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date of this notice . . . to file a court action on this claim. See Government Code Section 945.6.'" (Dujardin v. Ventura County Gen. Hosp., supra, 69 Cal. App. 3d at p. 360.) The court concluded that "if such was the case the claim was untimely or appellants were misled by the letter into believing that they had met the claim filing requirements, these facts and the county's failure to give notice that the claim was rejected because of untimely filing, may create an estoppel, which is also for the trier of fact to determine." (Ibid.)