In Mandjik v. Eden Township Hospital Dist. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1488, after defendants returned plaintiffs' claim for medical malpractice as untimely, plaintiffs submitted both a late claim application and in the alternative, a claim for damages. By letter, defendants denied the late claim application and indicated that the claim itself had not been considered. ( Mandjik, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 1495.) Plaintiffs filed a malpractice complaint approximately a year and a half later, arguing in part that they were entitled to the two-year statute of limitations under section 945.6 because defendants had failed to act on their claim. The trial court rejected that argument and sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. (Mandjik, at pp. 1499-1500.) The appellate court disagreed and reversed. It explained that a public entity cannot assume that a claim is untimely simply because both a claim and application for leave to file a late claim are presented, and that a public entity is not permitted to make factual determinations relating to the timeliness of a claim when the facts are in dispute. ( Mandjik, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 1500.) But the court did not hold that a public entity must always reject a claim on the merits and send notice under section 913 whenever it denies a late claim application. "Rather, where a claim submitted along with an application for leave to present a late claim alleges facts which, if true, would make the claim timely, the public entity must give specific written notice of rejection under section 913. If the public entity fails to do so, the claimant has two years from the accrual of his cause of action to file his complaint. " (Mandjik, at p. 1500.)