In Leake v. Wu (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 668, the children of the decedent, through their guardian ad litem, brought suit against an anesthesiologist present at a surgery where their mother died. (Leake, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at pp. 669-670.) The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the anesthesiologist was a county employee and plaintiffs had not complied with the Government Claims Act. (Leake, at p. 670.) "The dispositive issue," according to the court of appeal, was "whether plaintiffs' affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment created a triable issue of fact as to plaintiffs' claim to fall within the exception provided by Government Code section 950.4." (Id. at p. 671.) Both the guardian ad litem, who was 70 years old with only an eighth-grade education, and the plaintiffs' attorney, declared that they did not know the anesthesiologist was a county employee until after the litigation commenced. (Id. at p. 672.) Both understood that as a licensed physician, the anesthesiologist was an independent professional, not an employee of the county-owned hospital. (Ibid.) The Leake court affirmed based on the "'inexcusable neglect'" of the attorney. (Leake, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at p. 673.) "Despite the fact that the county hospital was named as a defendant, no claim was ever filed with the county, and it appears that the county was never even served with summons and the complaint. The attorney apparently conducted no investigation, such as simple inquiry to the hospital, to determine whether the doctors might have been county employees. Instead, the attorney chose to rely solely on his understanding or personal experience that a doctor is an independent contractor. The attorney's failure to make even a minimal inquiry into the matter was not the conduct of a reasonably prudent person nor the type of mistake or neglect for which the statutes afford relief." (Ibid.)