Kern v. St. Joseph's Hospital case summary
697 P.2d 135 (N.M. 1985)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Petitioner decedent's wife and personal representative challenged the decision of the Court of Appeals (New Mexico), which affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent health care providers based on the statute of limitations under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-13.
FACTS:
-Petitioner's decedent, Dale Kern, received external beam radiation therapy for cancer of the bladder at St. Joseph Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
-The treatments were administered by defendant-respondent Dr. Simmons, an employee of defendant-respondent, X-Ray Associates, from August 16, 1977, through September 22, 1977.
-Kern and his wife were told by Dr. Simmons that Kern's therapy would consist of 30 treatments of radiation. After Kern had received 25 treatments, however, the therapy was discontinued without explanation.
-When Kern and his wife asked Dr. Simmons the reason for the early termination of the therapy, Dr. Simmons did not respond and appeared to stare off in the other direction.
-After the radiation treatments, Kern experienced problems with frequency of urination and the passing of blood in his bowel movements and urine.
-Kern died on August 30, 1982. The cause of death listed on the death certificate was sepsis-urinary tract infection due to or as a consequence of irradiation cystitis and proctitis and/or urinary bladder cancer.
-Both Kern and his wife believed that the problems Kern experienced after the radiation therapy were acceptable complications of the treatments.
- They were never informed that Kern had received an excessive amount of radiation.
-However, after reading a newspaper article in 1981 regarding excessive radiation having allegedly been administered at St. Joseph Hospital, they began to suspect the propriety of Kern's treatment. -Kern and his wife employed a lawyer to investigate whether Kern's radiation therapy had been administered properly.
OVERVIEW: Petitioner decedent's wife and personal representative sought review of the appellate court's decision that affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent health care providers. Although the court acknowledged that N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-13 statute of limitations applied, the court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded to the trial court because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether respondents fraudulently concealed medical malpractice, said concealment possibly tolling the limitations period.
RULES:
-Silence may sometimes constitute fraudulent concealment where a physician breaches his fiduciary duty to disclose material information concerning a patient's treatment.
-The statute of limitations, however, is not tolled if the patient knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of his cause of action within the statutory period. If tolled by fraudulent concealment, the statute commences to run again when the patient discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the malpractice.
-To toll the statute of limitations under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, a patient has the burden, therefore, of showing (1) that the physician knew of the alleged wrongful act and concealed it from the patient or had material information pertinent to its discovery which he failed to disclose, and (2) that the patient did not know, or could not have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence, of his cause of action within the statutory period.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the decisions of the lower courts because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether respondent health care providers fraudulently concealed medical malpractice from petitioner decedent's wife and personal representative, and remanded the matter to the trial court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
697 P.2d 135 (N.M. 1985)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Petitioner decedent's wife and personal representative challenged the decision of the Court of Appeals (New Mexico), which affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent health care providers based on the statute of limitations under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-13.
FACTS:
-Petitioner's decedent, Dale Kern, received external beam radiation therapy for cancer of the bladder at St. Joseph Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
-The treatments were administered by defendant-respondent Dr. Simmons, an employee of defendant-respondent, X-Ray Associates, from August 16, 1977, through September 22, 1977.
-Kern and his wife were told by Dr. Simmons that Kern's therapy would consist of 30 treatments of radiation. After Kern had received 25 treatments, however, the therapy was discontinued without explanation.
-When Kern and his wife asked Dr. Simmons the reason for the early termination of the therapy, Dr. Simmons did not respond and appeared to stare off in the other direction.
-After the radiation treatments, Kern experienced problems with frequency of urination and the passing of blood in his bowel movements and urine.
-Kern died on August 30, 1982. The cause of death listed on the death certificate was sepsis-urinary tract infection due to or as a consequence of irradiation cystitis and proctitis and/or urinary bladder cancer.
-Both Kern and his wife believed that the problems Kern experienced after the radiation therapy were acceptable complications of the treatments.
- They were never informed that Kern had received an excessive amount of radiation.
-However, after reading a newspaper article in 1981 regarding excessive radiation having allegedly been administered at St. Joseph Hospital, they began to suspect the propriety of Kern's treatment. -Kern and his wife employed a lawyer to investigate whether Kern's radiation therapy had been administered properly.
OVERVIEW: Petitioner decedent's wife and personal representative sought review of the appellate court's decision that affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent health care providers. Although the court acknowledged that N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-5-13 statute of limitations applied, the court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded to the trial court because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether respondents fraudulently concealed medical malpractice, said concealment possibly tolling the limitations period.
RULES:
-Silence may sometimes constitute fraudulent concealment where a physician breaches his fiduciary duty to disclose material information concerning a patient's treatment.
-The statute of limitations, however, is not tolled if the patient knew, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of his cause of action within the statutory period. If tolled by fraudulent concealment, the statute commences to run again when the patient discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the malpractice.
-To toll the statute of limitations under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, a patient has the burden, therefore, of showing (1) that the physician knew of the alleged wrongful act and concealed it from the patient or had material information pertinent to its discovery which he failed to disclose, and (2) that the patient did not know, or could not have known through the exercise of reasonable diligence, of his cause of action within the statutory period.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed the decisions of the lower courts because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether respondent health care providers fraudulently concealed medical malpractice from petitioner decedent's wife and personal representative, and remanded the matter to the trial court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment