This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves claims of medical malpractice against two doctors, brought by the estate and family of a deceased patient. The patient was misdiagnosed with a non-cancerous condition, which later turned out to be cancer. The patient discovered the misdiagnosis over two years before her death, and the claims were filed more than three years after this discovery (paras 1, 6-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Miguel County: Dismissed the claims as time-barred under the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of repose (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the statute of repose should not apply to the family's loss of consortium claims as they were not patients, and that the due process exception should extend the filing period for claims accruing late in the repose period (paras 13-14).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the claims were filed beyond the three-year statutory limit and that the due process exception did not apply as the claims accrued when the patient discovered the malpractice, not at her death (paras 9-10).
Legal Issues
- Does the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of repose apply to loss of consortium claims by non-patients? (para 2)
- Did the district court err in determining the accrual date for the wrongful death and loss of consortium claims? (paras 3-5)
- Does the due process exception apply to extend the filing period for claims accruing late in the repose period? (para 4)
Disposition
- The dismissal of the wrongful death claim was affirmed.
- The dismissal of the loss of consortium claims was reversed and remanded for further proceedings (para 31).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Attrep C.J. and Yohalem J. concurring):
The court held that the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of repose applies to the family's loss of consortium claims because they are based on allegations of negligent medical care, regardless of whether the claimants were patients (paras 15-16). The court found that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the prima facie case that the claims were filed beyond the three-year limit, as they did not provide evidence that the standard of care required the doctors to revisit their diagnosis after the last treatment date (paras 17-19). The court determined that the wrongful death claims accrued when the patient discovered the malpractice, not at her death, and thus the due process exception did not apply (paras 23-27). However, the court concluded that the loss of consortium claims accrued when the family members knew or should have known of their injuries, not when the patient discovered her injury, warranting a remand for further proceedings on these claims (paras 28-30).