Doe v. Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc.
2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 2, 814 A.2d 939, 2003 WL 125475 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the discovery rule, the determination of when a cause of action accrues is a question of fact for the jury when there is a dispute regarding the plaintiff's reasonable diligence in discovering the injury, especially when a potential wrongdoer's misrepresentations or denials may have delayed the plaintiff's discovery.
Facts:
- In April 1996, John Doe, who was secretly HIV positive, was treated at Washington Hospital Center (WHC).
- Tijuana Goldring was a co-worker of Doe's at a separate janitorial job and also worked as a receptionist at WHC.
- On April 23, 1996, while at WHC for a follow-up visit, Doe spoke with Goldring, who asked for the correct spelling of his uncommon last name, claiming she wanted to send a get-well card.
- On April 25, 1996, co-worker Derek Nelson taunted Doe, saying, "I hear you’re dying of AIDS."
- Later that day, another co-worker, Donnell Fuell, told Doe that Goldring was spreading rumors that he had AIDS.
- On April 29, 1996, Doe confronted Goldring, who denied spreading the rumors. Doe testified that he believed her because he considered her a friend.
- Later the same day, Doe brought Fuell and Goldring together; their reactions led Doe to conclude the rumor was a "Donnell Fuell joke."
- On May 20, 1996, an interaction involving Fuell and Goldring near a time clock convinced Doe that Goldring had lied and was indeed the source of the rumors, having likely accessed his hospital records.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe filed a complaint against Medlantic Health Care Group, Inc. and Tijuana Goldring on May 20, 1997, in the D.C. Superior Court, which is the trial court of general jurisdiction.
- Goldring was dismissed from the case prior to trial.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against Medlantic on claims of invasion of privacy and breach of confidential relationship.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Doe on the breach of confidential relationship claim, awarding $250,000, and found for Medlantic on the invasion of privacy claim.
- On a special verdict form, the jury explicitly found that Doe's claims did not arise before May 20, 1996, and thus the suit was filed within the one-year statute of limitations.
- Medlantic filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law (also known as judgment notwithstanding the verdict).
- The trial court judge granted Medlantic's motion, set aside the jury verdict, and entered judgment for Medlantic, ruling that Doe's claim was barred by the statute of limitations as a matter of law.
- Doe, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the highest court for D.C. local matters.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a cause of action accrue under the discovery rule, as a matter of law, at the moment a plaintiff is first told of a potential wrongdoer's identity, even if the plaintiff conducts a reasonable inquiry and is misled by the potential wrongdoer's denial?
Opinions:
Majority - Ruiz, J.
No. The question of when a cause of action accrues under the discovery rule is a fact-bound inquiry for the jury, and the trial court erred by substituting its judgment for the jury's reasonable conclusion. The discovery rule requires an evaluation of whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence under all circumstances, and the jury could reasonably find that Doe acted diligently by confronting Goldring and Fuell. The jury was entitled to credit Doe's testimony that he believed Goldring's denial due to their friendship and was reasonably misled until the events of May 20. The trial judge improperly weighed the evidence, made credibility determinations contrary to the jury's verdict, and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Doe. Therefore, the jury's factual finding that the claim accrued on May 20, 1996, should not have been overturned.
Dissenting - Belson, J.
Yes. The cause of action accrued as a matter of law before May 20, 1996, because the objective facts put Doe on inquiry notice much earlier. When Fuell explicitly identified Goldring as the source on April 25, a reasonable person would have been on notice of a potential claim against both Goldring and the hospital where she worked. Doe's investigation was not reasonably diligent; he was too easily placated by the denials and failed to follow up on obvious inconsistencies or question other co-workers. Given the information available to him by late April, Doe's failure to investigate further until the fortuitous event of May 20 means he did not act with the reasonable diligence required by the discovery rule.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the application of the discovery rule is predominantly a factual question for the jury, not a legal one for the court, especially where a plaintiff's diligence is at issue. It curtails the power of judges to grant judgment as a matter of law on statute of limitations grounds when a plaintiff presents evidence of being misled by a defendant's denials. The ruling establishes that a plaintiff's reasonable, albeit temporarily unsuccessful, investigation can be sufficient to toll the statute of limitations, thereby protecting claimants from losing their day in court due to a wrongdoer's deceptive conduct.
