Kern v. St. Joseph's Hospital
697 P.2d 135 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A medical malpractice statute of limitations that runs from the date of the wrongful act, not the discovery of injury, can be tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. To establish fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must show the physician knew of and concealed the wrongful act and that the patient, through reasonable diligence, could not have discovered the cause of action within the statutory period.
Facts:
- From August to September 1977, Dale Kern received external beam radiation therapy for bladder cancer from Dr. Doyle Simmons.
- Dr. Simmons informed Kern and his wife that the therapy would involve 30 treatments.
- However, Dr. Simmons discontinued the therapy after only 25 treatments without providing an explanation.
- When Kern and his wife asked Dr. Simmons why the treatments were terminated early, he did not respond and appeared to look away.
- Following the treatments, Kern suffered from severe complications, which he and his wife believed were acceptable side effects of the therapy.
- In 1981, after reading a newspaper article about excessive radiation being administered at the same hospital, the Kerns began to suspect malpractice.
- Dale Kern died on August 30, 1982, with the death certificate listing irradiation cystitis and proctitis (inflammation from radiation) as a cause of death.
Procedural Posture:
- Danny Kern, as personal representative of Dale Kern's estate, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Doyle Simmons and X-Ray Associates in the trial court on March 21, 1983.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- Kern (petitioner/appellant) appealed the decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
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 the doctrine of fraudulent concealment toll the three-year medical malpractice statute of limitations, which begins to run from the date of the wrongful act, when a patient presents evidence that a physician prematurely and without explanation terminated radiation treatments, evaded questions about it, and expert affidavits later suggest a 'gross calculation error' resulted in excessive radiation?
Opinions:
Majority - Federici, C.J.
Yes. The statute of limitations can be tolled by fraudulent concealment, and the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on this issue, making summary judgment improper. The court first affirmed that the language of the governing statute, NMSA 1978, Section 41-5-13, is unambiguous: the three-year limitations period begins on the 'date that the act of malpractice occurred,' not when the injury is discovered. However, the court then applied the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which estops a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense if they prevented the plaintiff from discovering the cause of action. The test requires the plaintiff to show (1) the physician knew of and concealed the wrongful act, and (2) the patient could not have reasonably discovered the cause of action within the period. The court found that the combination of the unexplained early termination of treatment, Dr. Simmons' silence when questioned, and expert affidavits alleging a 'gross calculation error' and 'greatly excessive' radiation was sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to whether Dr. Simmons knew of the malpractice and concealed it. Therefore, the case was remanded for trial.
Dissenting - Riordan, J.
No. The dissenting opinion, adopting the Court of Appeals' reasoning, would have affirmed the summary judgment because the petitioner failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment. The lower court reasoned that tolling the statute requires proof of the physician's actual knowledge (scienter) of the wrongdoing and concealment. The evidence presented, including expert affidavits pointing to a 'gross calculation error,' only established a basis for negligence (what the physician 'should have known'), not actual knowledge. Dr. Simmons' silence when questioned was deemed ambiguous and insufficient to create an inference of knowing concealment. Because the petitioner did not provide clear evidence that Dr. Simmons actually knew of and hid the excessive radiation, the strict three-year statute of limitations should bar the claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interaction between a strict 'occurrence-based' statute of limitations and the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment in medical malpractice cases. While upholding the harsh statutory rule that the limitations period begins with the negligent act itself, the court reinforces fraudulent concealment as a vital patient protection. The ruling establishes that circumstantial evidence, such as a doctor's evasive behavior combined with expert testimony of gross error, can be sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion on the issue of concealment. This precedent makes it more difficult for healthcare providers to benefit from statutes of limitations by actively or passively hiding their malpractice, ensuring that juries, rather than judges, will more often decide questions of a physician's knowledge and intent to conceal.
Unlock the full brief for Kern v. St. Joseph's Hospital