Williamson v. Hebert
2010 La. LEXIS 655, 31 So. 3d 1047, 2010 WL 1286853 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patient's mere apprehension that something is wrong is insufficient to commence the running of the prescriptive period (statute of limitations) for medical malpractice. The period begins only when the patient has actual or constructive knowledge that their problem may have been caused by acts of malpractice, which can be delayed by reasonable reliance on medical professionals' reassurances.
Facts:
- On August 3, 2000, a patient, the plaintiff, underwent a surgical procedure.
- Following the surgery, the plaintiff experienced symptoms and apprehended that something was wrong with her condition.
- The plaintiff consulted two different doctors regarding her post-operative symptoms.
- Both doctors assured the plaintiff that her condition was normal for post-surgery and would continue to improve.
- One of the consulting doctors informed the plaintiff that her symptoms might take up to two years to resolve completely.
- By August 2002, the plaintiff's symptoms had not improved as the doctors predicted.
- In August 2002, the plaintiff conducted computer research and learned for the first time that her persistent symptoms could have been caused by medical malpractice during her surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint on August 16, 2002 in the district court (trial court).
- Defendant filed an exception of prescription, arguing the claim was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The district court denied the defendant's exception, allowing the case to proceed.
- Defendant, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the intermediate court of appeal.
- The court of appeal reversed the district court's judgment, finding in favor of the defendant and dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- Plaintiff, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the state's highest court to review the court of appeal's 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 one-year prescriptive period for a medical malpractice claim begin to run when a patient merely apprehends that something is wrong, even if multiple medical professionals subsequently assure the patient that her post-operative symptoms are normal and will resolve over time?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the one-year prescriptive period does not begin to run based on a patient's mere apprehension when they have been reassured by medical professionals. Citing its precedent in Campo v. Correa, the court held that prescription only commences when a plaintiff knew or should have known through reasonable diligence that their problem may have been caused by malpractice. The plaintiff in this case exercised reasonable diligence by consulting two doctors after her surgery. Because both doctors assured her that her condition was normal and would improve over time, her duty to inquire further was suspended. The prescriptive period only began to run in August 2002 when, after her symptoms failed to resolve as predicted, her own research gave her constructive knowledge of the potential malpractice. Therefore, her complaint filed on August 16, 2002, was timely filed within one year of this discovery.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the 'discovery rule' within Louisiana's medical malpractice law, specifically concerning the concept of constructive knowledge. The ruling emphasizes that a patient's reasonable reliance on the reassurances of medical professionals can toll, or delay, the start of the prescriptive period. It serves to protect plaintiffs who are diligent in seeking medical advice but are lulled into a false sense of security, preventing their claims from being time-barred due to misplaced trust in their doctors' prognoses. This precedent instructs lower courts to carefully evaluate not only what a patient knew, but also what they were told by other physicians when determining when the clock for a malpractice claim should start.
Unlock the full brief for Williamson v. Hebert