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 Plaintiff sustained a wrist fracture and dislocation in a vehicle accident on August 20, 1996. The Defendant, an orthopedic surgeon, treated the injury with a closed external reduction and cast application. Subsequent x-rays taken by the Defendant indicated proper healing. However, on December 24, 1996, another physician determined the fracture had been improperly set, necessitating surgery and further treatment. The Plaintiff alleged the Defendant negligently treated her wrist and fraudulently concealed the malpractice (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Roosevelt County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of repose (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the statute of repose under the Medical Malpractice Act should be tolled due to the Defendant's fraudulent concealment of the improper treatment. Claimed she had three years from the date of discovery of the malpractice to file her claim (para 4).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the statute of repose barred the claim because the Plaintiff discovered the alleged malpractice within the three-year statutory period but failed to file the claim within that time despite having adequate opportunity to do so (paras 4, 7).
Legal Issues
- Does the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of repose allow for tolling due to fraudulent concealment when the Plaintiff discovered the malpractice within the statutory period but failed to file within that time?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of repose (para 27).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Castillo and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Medical Malpractice Act's statute of repose is an occurrence-based rule, meaning claims must be filed within three years of the act of malpractice, regardless of when the malpractice is discovered. Fraudulent concealment may toll the statute only if the concealment prevents discovery of the malpractice for the full statutory period. In this case, the Plaintiff discovered the malpractice within the statutory period and had over two years and ten months to file her claim, which was deemed an adequate time to act with ordinary diligence. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the statute was to address a medical malpractice insurance crisis by limiting liability exposure for healthcare providers. The Plaintiff's failure to file within the statutory period, despite discovering the malpractice, barred her claim (paras 6-27).