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

plaintiffdamagesnegligencestatuteappealtrialsummary judgmentstatute of limitationssustained
plaintiffdefendantdamagesstatuteappealtrialsummary judgmentmalpracticestatute of limitationssustained

Related Cases

Wielgus v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., 875 F.Supp.2d 854
View Case »
Gator Apple, LLC v. Apple Texas Restaurants, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 521
View Case »
Bishop v. East Ohio Gas Co., 143 Ohio St. 541, 56 N.E.2d 164, 28 O.O. 470
View Case »
Bashara v. Baptist Memorial Hosp. System, 685 S.W.2d 307
View Case »
United States v. Askins & Miller Orthopaedics, P.A., 924 F.3d 1348, 123 A.F.T.R.2d 2019-1921, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 2001
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Natalini v. Little, 185 S.W.3d 239

Facts

Joseph Natalini was treated by Dr. Blake A. Little for lung lesions and underwent various diagnostic tests in Kansas. Despite indications of potential cancer, Dr. Little failed to follow up appropriately, leading to a delayed diagnosis of lung cancer in July 1998. Natalini passed away in April 2004, and his family filed a wrongful-death action against Dr. Little in Missouri, claiming that his negligence caused Natalini's cancer to become incurable.

Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking damages against the Defendant for the wrongful death of their decedent due to Defendant's alleged medical malpractice. Defendant raised, among other things, the affirmative defense that the Kansas statute of limitation, the application of which is required by the Missouri borrowing statute, barred Plaintiffs' claim.

Issue

Did the wrongful-death claim originate in Kansas, and was it subject to Kansas's statute of limitations as applied by Missouri's borrowing statute?

Did the wrongful-death claim originate in Kansas, and was it subject to Kansas's statute of limitations as applied by Missouri's borrowing statute?

Rule

Under Missouri's borrowing statute, a cause of action is subject to the statute of limitations of the state where it originated, which is determined by where the injury occurred and when it became capable of ascertainment.

Whenever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws of the state, territory or country in which it originated, said bar shall be a complete defense to any action thereon, brought in any of the courts of this state.

Analysis

The court found that the wrongful-death claim originated in Kansas because the injury (the progression of Natalini's cancer) occurred there, and the damages were sustained in Kansas. The court applied the borrowing statute, concluding that the Kansas statute of limitations applied, which barred the plaintiffs' claim as it was filed after the expiration of that period.

This court can come to no conclusion other than that the damages from Defendant's wrongs, whether to Natalini or to Plaintiffs, were sustained and became capable of ascertainment in the state of Kansas, and, therefore, originated in Kansas.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Little, concluding that the plaintiffs' wrongful-death claim was time-barred under Kansas law.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Little, concluding that the plaintiffs' wrongful-death claim was time-barred under Kansas law.

Who won?

Dr. Blake A. Little prevailed in the case because the court determined that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, which was applicable under Missouri's borrowing statute.

Dr. Blake A. Little prevailed in the case because the court determined that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, which was applicable under Missouri's borrowing statute.

You must be