Walk v. Ring
44 P.3d 990, 378 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 61, 202 Ariz. 310 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Arizona, the statute of limitations for professional negligence accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that their injury is attributable to the professional's negligence or fault, not merely when they know of the injury and its general cause. Additionally, a professional's fiduciary duty to disclose potential negligence, even if unintentional, can toll the statute of limitations under the doctrine of constructive fraud until the plaintiff has actual knowledge or reasonable notice of the breach of trust.
Facts:
- In 1991, Dr. Dale J. Ring, a dentist, recommended and began a full-mouth reconstruction for Jimmye Walk, which involved grinding down and crowning all her teeth.
- Jimmye Walk had a history of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) problems, which Dr. Ring knew about and for which he sent her to Dr. Hodges, who found no significant pain prior to the reconstruction.
- Shortly after Dr. Ring began his work, in October 1991, Jimmye Walk reported significant TMJ pain following an eleven-hour reconstruction session.
- From late 1991 through fall 1992, Dr. Ring made numerous adjustments and consulted with Dr. Hodges, but Jimmye Walk's pain did not subside, and her TMJ problems became severe by late 1993.
- In October 1993, Dr. Ring referred Jimmye Walk to Dr. McDonald, a Phoenix dentist specializing in TMJ problems and reconstruction.
- In June 1994, Dr. Ring told Jimmye Walk he was unable to help her, was referring her back to Dr. McDonald, and would pay for Dr. McDonald's treatment, explaining that the outcome was not what he had hoped or what she deserved, but also stating, 'not because I did anything wrong'.
- Sometime after August 1994, Dr. McDonald concluded that Jimmye Walk's TMJ problems were attributable to Dr. Ring's reconstruction work, specifically that the crowns were too long and angled improperly, mispositioning her jaw, and later informed Dr. Ring's insurance carrier that Dr. Ring 'understands that he was at fault'.
- Jimmye Walk only learned of Dr. McDonald's assessment that Dr. Ring was at fault in 1996 and then consulted an attorney.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmye Walk brought a dental malpractice action against Dr. Dale J. Ring and his practice in Yavapai County Superior Court (trial court).
- The trial judge granted Dr. Ring's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Jimmye Walk's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
- Jimmye Walk appealed the trial court's summary judgment decision.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Ring.
- Jimmye Walk filed a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to examine the application of discovery and fraud theories to the statute of limitations for professional negligence claims.
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 statute of limitations for professional negligence begin to accrue when a plaintiff knows only of an injury and its general cause, or when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that the injury is attributable to the professional's negligence or fault, especially in the context of a fiduciary relationship and potential fraudulent concealment?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Justice
No, the statute of limitations for professional negligence does not automatically accrue when a plaintiff knows only of an injury and its general cause; rather, it accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that the injury is attributable to the professional's negligence or fault. The Court clarifies that in professional or fiduciary relationships, an adverse or untoward result alone is not sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations. There must be reason to connect the 'what' (injury) to a 'who' (the professional) in a way that puts a reasonable person on notice to investigate whether the injury resulted from fault. To suggest otherwise, as the Court of Appeals did by relying on Kowske, would effectively penalize blamelessly uninformed plaintiffs and foster mistrust in professional relationships, which the Court declines to do. The Court finds that the legislative history, particularly the return to an 'accrual' rule after Kenyon, supports this interpretation. Furthermore, the Court rules that there are factual issues regarding whether Dr. Ring fraudulently concealed his potential negligence. A doctor and patient are in a fiduciary relationship requiring frank and truthful information. Dr. Ring's affirmative statement that he 'did nothing wrong,' coupled with his failure to disclose the opinions of the specialists he referred Jimmye Walk to regarding his faulty treatment, constitutes a potential breach of his fiduciary duty. Constructive fraud does not require actual dishonesty or intent to deceive, only a breach of a legal or equitable duty, which would toll the statute of limitations until Jimmye Walk had actual knowledge or reasonable notice of the breach of trust. The questions of discovery, diligent investigation, and fraudulent concealment are therefore for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Arizona's application of the discovery rule in professional negligence actions, particularly for those involving fiduciary relationships. By requiring knowledge or reasonable notice of fault (not just injury) to trigger the statute of limitations, the ruling makes it more challenging for professionals to obtain summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, increasing the likelihood that juries will decide such cases. It also reinforces the stringent fiduciary duties of professionals, emphasizing that active concealment or even passive failure to disclose known professional criticism can constitute constructive fraud, thereby tolling the limitations period and fostering greater transparency in professional-client relationships.
