Penrod v. Hoskinson

Montana Supreme Court

Penrod v. Hoskinson

Montana Supreme Court·Decided July 21, 1977·No. 13251·Published

Opinion

No. 13251

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN

JEANETTE PENROD,

Plaintiff,

-VS - WILLIAM S. HOSKINSON, M.D.,

Defendant . C e r t i f i e d by: U.S. D i s t r i c t Court Honorable James F. B a t t i n , U.S. D i s t r i c t Judge presiding.

Counsel o f Record :

For P l a i n t i f f :

C a t e , T,ynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d and Huss , B i l l i n g s , Montana George W. Huss a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana

F o r Defendant :

Anderson, Symrnes, F o r b e s , P e e t e and Brown, B i l l i n g s , Montana Richard F. C e b u l l a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted: J u n e 3 , 1976

Decided :J L U 2 1 1976 F i l e d : $fJb 2 1 1G7C'; Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

T h i s i s a n o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment

p u r s u a n t t o Rule 1 o f t h e R u l e s of t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t .

I t i s based upon t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Hon. James F. B a t t i n ,

United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e , p r e s i d i n g i n a c i v i l c a u s e i n

U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t of Montana e n t i t l e d

" J e a n e t t e Penrod, p l a i n t i f f , v . William S. Hoskinson, M . D . ,

defendant."

The c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t e s t h a t s u c h l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e s

a c o n t r o l l i n g q u e s t i o n o f Montana l a w a s t o which t h e r e i s a sub-

s t a n t i a l ground f o r a d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n , v i z . whether s e c t i o n

93-2624, R.C.M. 1947, a s amended, o r s e c t i o n 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947,

i s t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n . Judge B a t t i n h a s f u r t h e r

c e r t i f i e d t h a t a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h i s q u e s t i o n by t h e Montana Sup-

reme C o u r t w i l l m a t e r i a l l y advance u l t i m a t e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e

federal litigation.

The p r e c i s e q u e s t i o n f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s c e r t i f i e d by

Judge B a t t i n :

" I s § 93-2624, R.C.M. 1947, a s amended, e n a c t e d i n 1971, o r i s 9 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947, t h e a p p l i c - a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n i n a medical malpractice a c t i o n i n which t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t a c t t o o k p l a c e i n May of 1969, t h e p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d l y h a v i n g d i s c o v e r e d t h e n e g l i g e n c e i n September o f 1973, and t h e a c t i o n having been f i l e d on A p r i l 23, 1975?"

Judge B a t t i n h a s c e r t i f i e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s g i v i n g

rise t o t h i s issue:

"On May 6, 1969, p l a i n t i f f underwent s u r g e r y i n t h e Holy Rosary H o s p i t a l i n M i l e s C i t y , Montana, where s h e underwent a h y s t e r e c t o m y , g a l l b l a d d e r removal, and i n c i d e n t a l appendectomy. The d o c t o r who performed t h e s u r g e r y was t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t h i s c a s e , WILLIAM S. HOSKINSON, M.D. On September 21, 1973, d u r i n g a r o u t i n e p h y s i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n , p l a i n - t i f f was a d v i s e d by a p h y s i c i a n a t t h e Holy Rosary H o s p i t a l t h a t it a p p e a r e d on X-ray t h a t s h e had a s u r g i c a l d r a i n i n t h e a r e a of her spleen.

"On August 1 5 , 1974, p l a i n t i f f underwent s u r g e r y a t Holy Rosary H o s p i t a l f o r removal of t h e drain.

" P l a i n t i f f f i l e d a Complaint c h a r g i n g t h e defend- a n t w i t h m a l p r a c t i c e on o r a b o u t t h e 23rd day o f A p r i l , 1975."

Defendant h a s f i l e d a motion f o r summary judgment i n

t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t a c t i o n , c l a i m i n g t h e a c t i o n i s b a r r e d by

s e c t i o n 93-2624, R.C.M. 1947. P l a i n t i f f h a s opposed t h e motion

f o r summary judgment on t h e ground t h a t s e c t i o n 93-2605(3),

R.C.M. 1947, i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e " d i s c o v e r y d o c t r i n e " s e t

f o r t h i n Johnson v. S t . P a t r i c k ' s Hosp., 148 Mont. 1 2 5 , 417 P.2d

469, makes t h e f i l i n g o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t t i m e l y .

The q u e s t i o n f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n v o l v e s a f i n d i n g o f

t h e s t a t u t o r y law of Montana, upon which t h e r e i s no g u i d i n g

o p i n i o n , and s p e c i f i c a l l y d e a l s w i t h t h e r e t r o a c t i v e e f f e c t o f

s e c t i o n 93-2624, R.C.M. 1947. Judge B a t t i n h a s c e r t i f i e d t h a t

t h e answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n i s c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h e a c t i o n b e f o r e

him and t h a t a d j u d i c a t i o n t h e r e o f by t h e Montana Supreme C o u r t

w i l l m a t e r i a l l y advance u l t i m a t e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t

litigation.

W e a c c e p t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o n March 1 9 , 1976, p r o v i d e d f o r

t h e f i l i n g of b r i e f s , h e a r d o r a l argument on J u n e 3 , 1976 and

t o o k t h e m a t t e r under advisement.

W e o b s e r v e t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e a l l e g e d m a l p r a c t i c e

on May 6, 1969, t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n was t h e

g e n e r a l t o r t s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n c o d i f i e d a s s e c t i o n 93-2605,

R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d i n g i n p a r t :

"93-2605. Within t h r e e years. Within t h r e e years: " * * * " 3 . A a c t i o n upon a n o b l i g a t i o n o r l i a b i l i t y , n n o t founded upon a n i n s t r u m e n t i n w r i t i n g , o t h e r than a c o n t r a c t , account, o r promise."

I n 1966 we h e l d t h a t a n a c t i o n f o r m a l p r a c t i c e d o e s n o t a c c r u e

u n t i l t h e p a t i e n t l e a r n s of it o r i n t h e e x e r c i s e of r e a s o n a b l e c a r e should have l e a r n e d of i t . Johnson v . S t . P a t r i c k s Hos-

p i t a l , supra.

I n 1971 b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n had become b a r r e d by

s e c t i o n 93-2605, t h e Montana L e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d a s p e c i f i c

s t a t u t e a p p l i c a b l e t o medical m a l p r a c t i c e a c t i o n s . This s t a t u t e

h a s been c o d i f i e d as s e c t i o n 93-2624, R.C.M. 1947, and p r o v i d e s

i n part:

"93-2624. Actions f o r medical malpractice. Action f o r i n j u r y o r d e a t h a g a i n s t a physician o r s u r g e o n * * * based upon s u c h p e r s o n ' s a l l e g e d professional negligence, o r f o r rendering profes- s i o n a l services without consent, o r f o r e r r o r o r o m i s s i o n i n such p e r s o n ' s p r a c t i c e , s h a l l be commenced w i t h i n t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s a f t e r t h e d a t e of i n j u r y o r t h r e e (3) years a f t e r t h e p l a i n t i f f d i s c o v e r s , o r through t h e use of reasonable d i l i - g e n c e s h o u l d have d i s c o v e r e d , t h e i n j u r y whichever o c c u r s l a s t , b u t i n no c a s e may such a c t i o n be commenced a f t e r f i v e ( 5 ) y e a r s from t h e d a t e of injury.

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