What is the applicable statute of limitations in this case?

Plaintiff argues that section 29, with its common law delayed-discovery tolling provision, is the applicable statute of limitations. If section 340.5 is applicable, she argues that it should be construed to retain this common law rule, since the statute does not explicitly abrogate it. (See Kite v. Campbell (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 793, 803, 191 Cal.Rptr. 363.) If this construction of section 340.5 is rejected, she argues that the statute's failure to make its "concealment" tolling provision applicable to minors as well as adults denies her equal protection of the law. ⁵

On their face, both section 29 and section 340.5 appear to govern this case. Since this is an action for "personal injuries sustained prior to or in the course of ... birth," it comes within section 29. (Fay v. Mundy (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 231, 236, 54 Cal.Rptr. 591.) As an action based on the [41 Cal.3d 892] negligence of the attending physicians at the birth, it is limited by the provisions of section 340.5.