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

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencestatutestatute of limitationsappellee

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencestatutestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Shadle v. Pearce, 287 Pa.Super. 436, 430 A.2d 683

Facts

The patient was treated by the dentist for an abscessed tooth in September 1972. Following this treatment, he developed bacterial endocarditis, leading to an aortic valve transplant in February 1973. The patient became aware that his heart condition was linked to the dentist's negligence shortly after the surgery. Although he recovered well, he chose not to sue at that time. In January 1976, he developed an aortic aneurysm, which he claimed was a result of the earlier dental negligence. The patient filed a lawsuit on December 20, 1977, after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.

On September 14, 1972, the plaintiff was treated by the defendant dentist for an abscessed tooth. It is alleged that the defendant dentist was negligent in his treatment. In December of 1972 the plaintiff developed a heart problem which resulted in his hospitalization from December of 1972 through February 1973. His condition was diagnosed as bacterial endocarditis. In February of 1973 an aortic valve transplant was performed.

Issue

Did the lower court err in finding that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations?

The issue presented is whether the statutory period began to run in February, 1973, when the Plaintiff learned of the alleged negligence by the Defendant which purportedly caused his aortic valve problem, or whether it began to run in January, 1976, when the aortic aneurysm complication developed.

Rule

Every suit to recover damages for injury wrongfully done to the person must be brought within two years from the time when the injury was done.

Every suit hereafter brought to recover damages for injury wrongfully done to the person, in cases where the injury does not result in death, must be brought within two years from the time when the injury was done and not afterwards.

Analysis

The court determined that the statute of limitations began to run in February 1973 when the Plaintiff learned of the alleged negligence that caused his aortic valve problem. The court noted that the aortic aneurysm was a complication arising from the earlier injury and that the Plaintiff had made a conscious decision not to pursue legal action within the two-year period after gaining knowledge of the negligence. Therefore, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred.

In light of those stipulated facts, we are constrained to conclude that the statute of limitations began to run in February, 1973, with respect to a cause of action against the Defendant for causing Plaintiff's aortic problems, including the bacterial endocarditis and the later-developed aortic aneurysm.

Conclusion

The Superior Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Defendant-Appellee (the dentist) prevailed because the court found that the Plaintiff's claim was filed after the statute of limitations had expired.

The conclusions reached by the lower court must be affirmed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 80 Fed.R.Serv.3d 136, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,681, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9710, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,589

Hickerson v. Yamaha Motor Corp., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 4055025

Looney v. Moore, 886 F.3d 1058, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 774

City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412, 57 USLW 4270

Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., 573 Pa. 245, 824 A.2d 1140