Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortnegligencestatutetrialmalpractice
negligencestatutetrialmalpractice

Related Cases

Betts v. Crawford, 965 P.2d 680
View Case »
Salica v. Tucson Heart Hosp.-Carondelet, L.L.C., 224 Ariz. 414, 231 P.3d 946, 583 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 24
View Case »
P.W. v. Children’s Hospital Colorado, 364 P.3d 891, 2016 CO 6
View Case »
Palermo v. LifeLink Foundation, Inc., 152 So.3d 1099, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,511
View Case »
Klinke v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 219 Mich.App. 500, 556 N.W.2d 528, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,830
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ambers-Phillips v. SSM DePaul Health Center, 459 S.W.3d 901

Facts

Shonda Ambers-Phillips underwent an exploratory laparotomy at SSM DePaul Health Center in September 1999 following a car accident. Nearly 14 years later, in June 2013, she had another surgery at a different hospital due to abdominal pain, during which four foreign objects were discovered that had been left in her body from the 1999 surgery. She and her husband subsequently filed a lawsuit against SSM DePaul for medical malpractice and loss of consortium, respectively.

On September 13, 1999, Ms. Ambers–Phillips was in a car accident. She underwent an exploratory laparotomy at SSM DePaul. Nearly 14 years later, in June 2013, she underwent another exploratory laparotomy at a different St. Louis-area hospital because she was having pain in her side. According to the petition, during the surgery her doctors found four foreign objects that had been left inside her abdomen during the 1999 surgery.

Issue

Whether the 10-year statute of repose for medical malpractice claims in Missouri can be equitably tolled until the patient discovers the foreign objects left in her body.

The Phillipses argue that the trial court erred in not holding that Missouri's 10–year statute of repose for foreign-object medical malpractice claims was equitably tolled until Ms. Ambers–Phillips discovered the wrong, analogizing to the tolling of certain statutes of limitations until the wrong has been discovered.

Rule

The court ruled that statutes of repose, unlike statutes of limitations, cannot be equitably tolled and begin to run from the date of the allegedly tortious act, providing an absolute deadline for filing suit.

While statutes of limitations are subject to equitable tolling in certain circumstances, statutes of repose by their nature are not.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the statute of repose serves a distinct purpose of providing a definitive time limit for claims, which is not subject to tolling. The court noted that the Phillipses' claims were filed 14 years after the alleged negligence, exceeding the 10-year limit set by the statute. The court also rejected the argument that the statute violated constitutional rights, affirming that the legislature's decision to impose a statute of repose was rational and did not infringe upon the right to bring suit.

The Phillipses acknowledge that this means that section 516.105's statute of repose appears to bar their claims. But they argue the 10–year repose period should be equitably tolled until the day Ms. Ambers–Phillips discovered the wrong.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Phillipses' claims, concluding that the statute of repose barred their action as it was filed beyond the 10-year limit.

For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

SSM DePaul Health Center prevailed in the case because the court upheld the dismissal of the claims based on the statute of repose, which the court found to be constitutionally valid.

SSM DePaul moved to dismiss the Phillipses' claims on numerous grounds, including that they were barred by section 516.105's 10–year statute of repose for claims of medical negligence involving the leaving of foreign objects in the body.

You must be