Overton v. Grillo
2008 Ind. LEXIS 1050, 2008 WL 4925018, 896 N.E.2d 499 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A medical malpractice claim for an allegedly misread mammogram is barred by the two-year statute of limitations when the plaintiff discovers cancer with sufficient time remaining in the limitations period to reasonably investigate and file suit, even if not explicitly advised of malpractice.
Facts:
- On July 7, 1999, Christine Overton underwent a routine mammogram.
- Dr. Marshall Grillo of Radiologic Associates of Northwest Indiana, Inc. (RANI) examined the mammogram film and reported that it showed no malignancy, suspicious calcifications, or dominant masses, informing Mrs. Overton that the mammogram was "normal."
- Fifteen months later, on September 27, 2000, Mrs. Overton discovered a lump in her right breast during an annual checkup.
- Another mammogram performed on October 2, 2000, showed a lesion and clustered calcifications, and an ultrasound and biopsy on the same date revealed carcinoma of the right breast which had metastasized to the lymph nodes.
- On November 1, 2000, Mrs. Overton underwent a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery, during which four of the eleven adjacent lymph nodes were found to be cancerous and removed.
- Mrs. Overton subsequently received chemotherapy and radiation treatments until July 2001.
- On October 11, 2001, Mrs. Overton met with her attorney and was advised of the possibility of a potential claim of medical negligence, which she testified was the first time she believed or suspected the 1999 mammogram was misinterpreted.
Procedural Posture:
- The Overtons filed suit against Dr. Grillo and RANI on October 19, 2001, in a trial court (court of first instance), alleging failure to properly interpret the 1999 mammogram and seeking Mrs. Overton’s damages and her husband’s loss of consortium.
- In 2002, Dr. Grillo and RANI moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, respectively, on statute of limitations grounds, which the trial court denied without explanation.
- More than two years later, Dr. Grillo moved for summary judgment again, asserting that the claim was untimely and that there was no malpractice.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Grillo on the statute of limitations, finding that the October 2, 2000 diagnosis of cancer "provided enough information to lead a reasonably diligent person in Overton’s position to have discovered the alleged malpractice."
- The Overtons appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court); Mrs. Overton died on September 21, 2007, while the appeal was pending, and her husband was substituted as plaintiff.
- The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed and remanded the trial court's decision, holding that the limitations period raised disputed issues of fact.
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 two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations bar a claim for an allegedly misread mammogram when the plaintiff learns of cancer with approximately nine months remaining in the limitations period, and without explicit advice of potential malpractice?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, Justice
Yes, the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations bars Christine Overton's claim because she learned of her cancer diagnosis on October 2, 2000, which provided her with approximately nine months to investigate and file suit within the statutory period, regardless of whether she was explicitly advised of potential malpractice. The Court held that the trigger date for the statute of limitations is when the plaintiff either knows of malpractice or learns of facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should lead to the discovery of malpractice and the resulting injury. Citing Boggs v. Tri-State Radiology, Inc., the diagnosis of metastasized cancer on October 2, 2000, served as the trigger date, providing enough information to put Mrs. Overton on "inquiry notice" of the possibility that her earlier "normal" mammogram had been misread. The fact that Mrs. Overton was not explicitly advised of malpractice by a legal or medical professional until October 2001 is not relevant, as the law does not require such explicit advice where the facts themselves should lead to discovery, as in Moyer v. Three Unnamed Physicians from Marion County & Del. County and Brinkman v. Bueter. The Court found nothing prevented the Overtons from filing within the remaining nine months, and Mrs. Overton's alleged physical incapacity was not sufficiently established or timely raised. Thus, summary judgment for Dr. Grillo was affirmed.
Dissenting - Dickson, J.
No, the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations should not bar Christine Overton's claim because the facts known to her upon her cancer diagnosis in October 2000 did not incontrovertibly establish that she "should have" or "would have" discovered malpractice in her prior mammogram, making summary judgment inappropriate. Justice Dickson disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the trigger date, arguing that the majority departed from the "should lead to discovery" standard established in Booth v. Wiley. He contended that Booth requires facts significant enough to create a reasonable probability of malpractice, not merely a "possibility" or "potential" for it, which he believed the majority's "inquiry notice" standard implied. Justice Dickson asserted that patients should reasonably trust their physicians, and the law should not foster a climate of suspicion requiring patients to question routine medical care based on mere possibility. He agreed with the Court of Appeals' view that Mrs. Overton could have reasonably believed her cancer appeared after her 1999 mammogram, rather than that the 1999 mammogram was misread. Therefore, whether Mrs. Overton, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered malpractice in 1999 based on her 2000 diagnosis was a disputed factual issue, making summary judgment improper.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'trigger date' for the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations in Indiana, emphasizing that explicit advice of malpractice is not a prerequisite if a plaintiff possesses facts that should reasonably lead to discovery. The ruling strengthens the 'inquiry notice' standard, effectively shifting the burden onto patients to investigate potential malpractice once they receive a subsequent, contradictory diagnosis. The dissenting opinion highlights a crucial tension in judicial interpretation between requiring a 'reasonable probability' versus a 'mere possibility' of malpractice to commence the limitations period, which has a substantial impact on the window patients have to preserve their claims. This decision potentially shortens the practical timeframe for filing medical malpractice suits, particularly in delayed diagnosis scenarios, by starting the clock earlier in the patient's diagnostic journey.
