In Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, the plaintiff sued the defendant for malpractice arising out of the defendant's performance of a hysterectomy, rather than the simple operation for removal of a tumor or appendix that plaintiff had understood and agreed was to be performed. The plaintiff suspected the doctors had done something wrong by failing to advise her in advance that the operation might end her ability to conceive. (Id. at p. 895.) However, when she consulted a firm of malpractice attorneys, they "told her there was 'no provable malpractice'." (Id. at p. 896.) After the statute of limitations had run, she consulted a second firm of lawyers and the action was immediately filed. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court reiterated the "uniform California rule . . . that a limitations period dependent on discovery of the cause of action begins to run no later than the time the plaintiff learns, or should have learned, the facts essential to his claim. " (Id. at p. 897.) Reliance on an attorney's advice did not postpone the time of discovery or extend the statute of limitations period applicable to a person "who had already come to suspect he or she was a victim of malpractice." (Id. at p. 898.) "The one-year 'discovery' limitations period for medical malpractice ( 340.5) is not delayed, suspended, or tolled when a plaintiff with actual or constructive knowledge of the facts underlying his malpractice claim is told by an attorney that he has no legal remedy." (Gutierrez v. Mofid, at p. 902.) In Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) the California Supreme Court construed the provisions of the one-year limitation period under section 340.5 to mean that "regardless of extenuating circumstances, the patient must bring his suit within one year after he discovers, or should have discovered, his 'injury.' " The California Supreme Court also ruled that "the patient is charged with 'presumptive' knowledge of his negligent injury, and the statute commences to run, once he has '"notice or information of circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry, or has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his investigation . . . ."' Thus, when the patient's 'reasonably founded suspicions have been aroused,' and she has actually 'become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of her remedies,' the one-year period for suit begins." (Id. at pp. 896-897.) The patient argued that the accrual period was tolled because she consulted with an attorney who told her she did not have a viable malpractice claim. Her contention was rejected, the court holding that under the discovery rule "the cause of action begins to run no later than the time the plaintiff learns, or should have learned, the facts essential to his or her claim." (Id. at p. 897.) Thus, there was no reason to depart from this rule where "despite plaintiff's discovery of the facts constituting his or her claim, and without defendant's fault," an attorney dissuades the plaintiff from filing suit. (Id. at p. 899.) The Court explained: "It is well settled that an attorney is liable for malpractice when his negligent investigation, advice, or conduct of the client's affairs results in loss of the client's meritorious claim. A legal malpractice suit is the traditional means of resolving allegations that an attorney's misconduct caused a claim to become barred by the statute of limitations. By this means, the attorney who caused the delay, rather than the 'innocent' defendant, is charged with its consequences." (Gutierrez v. Mofid, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 900.) The court in Gutierrez stated: "We are not persuaded that reliance on an attorney's advice postpones the time of 'discovery,' thus extending the limitations period applicable to one who had already come to suspect he is a victim of malpractice. '"Statutes of limitation . . . are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them."'" (Id. at p. 898.) The California Supreme Court in Gutierrez found the statute of limitations commenced when the plaintiff suspected her doctors' malpractice, not when her attorney notified her of the legal theories and remedies. (Ibid.)