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

liabilitystatuteappealtrialstatute of limitations

tortliabilitystatuteappealtrialmalpracticestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Chambers v. Conaway, 883 S.W.2d 156, 62 USLW 2317

Facts

Mrs. Conaway discovered a lump in her breast in October 1983 and was referred for a mammogram, which indicated the lump was not malignant. She continued to see Dr. Chambers for unrelated ailments until January 1988, when she last visited him. In March 1988, she was diagnosed with breast cancer by another physician. The trial court ruled that the statute of limitations barred her claim, but the Court of Appeals found that a fact issue existed regarding the termination of treatment.

October 1983: After Mrs. Conaway mentioned to Dr. Chambers, her family physician, that she had discovered a lump in her left breast, Dr. Chambers referred her to a local hospital for a mammogram. November 1, 1983: A radiologist at the hospital performed a bilateral mammogram and subsequently forwarded to Dr. Chambers a report listing the results. The report indicated that the lump in Mrs. Conaway's breast was not malignant and recommended that Mrs. Conaway be 'recheck[ed] with mammogram in about one year….'

Issue

Did the statute of limitations bar Mrs. Conaway's claim against Dr. Chambers for negligent failure to diagnose her breast cancer?

Rule

Under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, a health care liability claim must be filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or from the date the medical treatment that is the subject of the claim is completed.

The applicable statute of limitations is found in Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i, § 10.01 (Vernon Supp.1993), which provides: Notwithstanding any other law, no health care liability claim may be commenced unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the subject of the claim or the hospitalization for which the claim is made is completed….

Analysis

The Supreme Court determined that the cause of action did not accrue until Dr. Chambers failed to perform follow-up care after Mrs. Conaway's last appointment. The court emphasized that the statute of limitations begins to run from the occurrence of the breach, which in this case was the failure to provide adequate follow-up care regarding the lump in her breast.

Consequently, when Mrs. Conaway filed her action on January 30, 1989, it was within two years of the purported 'occurrence of the breach,' and her claim was not barred by limitations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that Mrs. Conaway's claim was timely filed within the two-year statute of limitations and remanded the case for trial.

We therefore remand the case for a trial on the merits of Mrs. Conaway's malpractice claim.

Who won?

Christine Conaway prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that her claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, allowing her to proceed to trial.

The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case, holding that a 'material fact issue exists as to whether Chambers or Christene Conaway by words or conduct terminated the treatment of her breast condition.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 143 N.E.2d 3, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3

Herskovits v. Group Health Co-op. of Puget Sound, 99 Wash.2d 609, 664 P.2d 474

Draper v. Chiapuzio, 9 F.3d 1391, 62 USLW 2348, 42 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 642

Shuster v. South Broward Hosp. Dist. Physicians’ Professional Liability Ins. Trust, 591 So.2d 174, 17 Fla. L. Weekly S4, 18 A.L.R.5th 1023

Welke v. Kuzilla, 144 Mich.App. 245, 375 N.W.2d 403