Winchester v. Fenton

Missouri Court of Appeals

Winchester v. Fenton

541 S.W.2d 572

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 1976

DocketNos. 10160, 10167

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 541 S.W.2d 572 (Winchester v. Fenton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winchester v. Fenton, 541 S.W.2d 572 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Malpractice action. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, have appealed from the dismissal of their suit for damages by the Circuit Court of Scott County because not brought within the two-year period of limitations governing malpractice actions. We affirm.

Plaintiffs’ petition was filed February 19, 1975. This petition, as well as subsequent amended petitions, sought damages against the defendants because of burns received by the wife on February 9,1973, while she was hospitalized.

The applicable portion of the statute of limitations, § 516.140, RSMo 1969, is as follows:

“All actions against physicians, surgeons . . . nurses, hospitals . . . for damages for malpractice, error, or mistake shall be brought within two years from the date of the act of neglect complained of. . .” (our emphasis).

Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to charge the defendants with negligence, the act of neglect upon which liability was sought to be predicated occurred more than two years before the plaintiffs filed this suit. Their action for damages is thus barred by the statute. Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1968); Holland v. Duckworth, 539 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App., filed July 22, 1976). Negligent treatment by the defendants subsequent to February 9, 1973, was not alleged and, consequently, Thatcher v. De Tar, 351 Mo. 603,173 S.W.2d 760 (1943), relied upon by plaintiffs to avoid the statutory bar, is not applicable.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Malpractice action. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, have appealed from the dismissal of their suit for damages by the Circuit Court of Scott County because not brought within the two-year period of limitations governing malpractice actions. We affirm.

Plaintiffs’ petition was filed February 19, 1975. This petition, as well as subsequent amended petitions, sought damages against the defendants because of burns received by the wife on February 9,1973, while she was hospitalized.

The applicable portion of the statute of limitations, § 516.140, RSMo 1969, is as follows:

“All actions against physicians, surgeons . . . nurses, hospitals . . . for damages for malpractice, error, or mistake shall be brought within two years from the date of the act of neglect complained of. . .” (our emphasis).

Assuming, without deciding, that plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to charge the defendants with negligence, the act of neglect upon which liability was sought to be predicated occurred more than two years before the plaintiffs filed this suit. Their action for damages is thus barred by the statute. Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. banc 1968); Holland v. Duckworth, 539 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App., filed July 22, 1976). Negligent treatment by the defendants subsequent to February 9, 1973, was not alleged and, consequently, Thatcher v. De Tar, 351 Mo. 603,173 S.W.2d 760 (1943), relied upon by plaintiffs to avoid the statutory bar, is not applicable.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.2d 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winchester-v-fenton-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack