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

plaintiffdefendantnegligencestatutetestimonysummary judgmentmalpractice
plaintiffdefendantnegligencestatutesummary judgmentstatute of limitations

Related Cases

Fossett v. Board of Regents of University of Nebraska, 258 Neb. 703, 605 N.W.2d 465
View Case »
Johnson v. City of Seattle, 474 F.3d 634, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 658, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 867
View Case »
Wilson v. Goodrich, 218 Iowa 462, 252 N.W. 142
View Case »
Baker v. Bolton, Not Reported in A.3d, 2014 WL 6461876
View Case »
Ezzell v. Miranne, 84 So.3d 641, 11-228 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Estate of Anderson ex rel. Herren v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, PLC, 819 N.W.2d 408

Facts

Erika Herren Anderson sought treatment from Dr. Charles Love for various skin lesions, including moles, beginning in September 1996. Over the years, Dr. Love performed multiple biopsies and evaluations of the lesions, but failed to timely diagnose her melanoma, which was ultimately discovered in 2008. Erika's estate filed a wrongful death action in 2010, alleging negligence against Dr. Love and the associated clinic and pathology lab, claiming that the defendants concealed the fact that a tissue sample was not evaluated by a board-certified pathologist.

When viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs, the summary judgment record would support the following findings of fact. In September 1996, Erika Herren Anderson sought care from Dr. Charles Love, a dermatologist employed by Iowa Dermatology Clinic, PLC, for the treatment of various moles and skin lesions.

Issue

Did the defendants' alleged fraudulent concealment of the evaluation of tissue samples toll the statute of repose for medical malpractice claims, and did the continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine apply to extend the statute of repose?

In this case, we are asked to review a summary judgment ruling dismissing a wrongful death action because it was commenced later than is allowed under Iowa Code section 614.1(9) (2011), a statute of repose limiting the time allowed for commencing medical negligence cases.

Rule

Under Iowa Code section 614.1(9), a medical malpractice claim must be brought within six years of the act or omission causing the injury. The doctrine of fraudulent concealment can toll the statute of repose if the plaintiff proves that the defendant concealed material facts and the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the true facts. The continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine requires proof of a continuous and unbroken course of negligent treatment.

Iowa Code § 614.1(9)(a). Unlike the statute of limitations, under which a claim accrues for injuries caused by medical negligence when the plaintiff knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, of the injury, a statute of repose runs from the occurrence of the act causing the injury.

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that Dr. Love concealed the fact that he evaluated the February 28, 1998 tissue specimen himself rather than sending it to a pathologist. Dr. Love's testimony indicated that he routinely informed patients about who would evaluate their specimens. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish a continuous course of negligent treatment, as there was no evidence that Dr. Love's actions after April 15, 1999, fell below the applicable standard of care.

We conclude, as did the district court, that the plaintiffs' resistances failed to produce admissible evidence tending to prove Erika was not informed that Dr. Love evaluated that specimen.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of repose and that neither the fraudulent concealment nor the continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrines applied.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on this issue.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of fraudulent concealment or continuous negligent treatment.

The plaintiffs contend their case should not have been dismissed because the defendants fraudulently concealed the fact that a tissue specimen harvested from the plaintiffs' decedent more than six years before the filing of this action was not evaluated by a board-certified pathologist.

You must be