Mary H. Fredericks v. Richard J. Rust

Sixth Circuit

Mary H. Fredericks v. Richard J. Rust

228 F.2d 893, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3723

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided December 7, 1955·No. 12473_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard upon the record and briefs of counsel for the respective parties;

And it appearing from the allegations of the complaint that the appellant became a patient of the appellee physician and surgeon on July 12, 1953, following an automobile accident on that day in which appellant was seriously injured, and that said relationship of physician and patient continued thereafter until its termination on August 19, 1953;

That on August 19, 1954 the appellant filed this action in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to recover damages from the ap-pellee because of his alleged failure to examine and treat the appellant with due care and to perform his duties as such physician;

And the Court being of the opinion that said action was not commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued, as required by Sec. 413.140 (1) (e), Kentucky Revised Statutes; Carter v. Harlan Hospital Association, 265 Ky. 452, 97 S.W.2d 9; Fannin v. Lewis, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 479; Preston v. Preston, 289 Ky. 552, 159 S.W.2d 414. *894 See: Annotation, 74 A.L.R. 1317, 1318, 1322;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court dismissing the action be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case was heard upon the record and briefs of counsel for the respective parties;

And it appearing from the allegations of the complaint that the appellant became a patient of the appellee physician and surgeon on July 12, 1953, following an automobile accident on that day in which appellant was seriously injured, and that said relationship of physician and patient continued thereafter until its termination on August 19, 1953;

That on August 19, 1954 the appellant filed this action in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to recover damages from the ap-pellee because of his alleged failure to examine and treat the appellant with due care and to perform his duties as such physician;

And the Court being of the opinion that said action was not commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued, as required by Sec. 413.140 (1) (e), Kentucky Revised Statutes; Carter v. Harlan Hospital Association, 265 Ky. 452, 97 S.W.2d 9; Fannin v. Lewis, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 479; Preston v. Preston, 289 Ky. 552, 159 S.W.2d 414. *894 See: Annotation, 74 A.L.R. 1317, 1318, 1322;

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court dismissing the action be affirmed.

Mary H. Fredericks v. Richard J. Rust, 228 F.2d 893, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3723 (6th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

228 F.2d 893 (Mary H. Fredericks v. Richard J. Rust) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related