Title: Wright v. Sharma

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Patrick M. WRIGHT and Elizabeth Wright v.
Bimlendra SHARMA, M.D., and B.V. Pai, M.D.

97-24                                              ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 4, 1997


1.   Limitation of actions -- burden of proof. -- When the running of the
     statute of limitations is raised as a defense, the defendant
     has the burden of affirmatively pleading the defense; however,
     once it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
     action is barred by the applicable limitations period, the
     burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of
     the evidence that the statute of limitations was in fact
     tolled.

2.   Civil procedure -- failure of service -- action never commenced. -- Under
     Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i), if a plaintiff files a lawsuit and does
     not serve the defendant within 120 days, the action is never
     commenced.

3.   Limitation of actions -- medical malpractice -- trial court correctly
     determined that appellants failed to prove period tolled by continuous
     course of treatment. -- Because it was clear from the face of the
     complaint that the alleged negligent act took place outside
     the two-year limitations period, it became appellants' burden
     in the lower court to show that the limitations period was
     tolled; the supreme court held that the trial court was
     correct in its determination that appellants failed to prove
     that the medical malpractice period was tolled by a continuous
     course of treatment.

4.   Limitation of actions -- medical malpractice -- continuous-treatment
     doctrine discussed. -- The continuous-treatment doctrine becomes
     relevant when the medical negligence consists of a series of
     negligent acts, or a continuing course of improper treatments;
     the cause of action accrues at the end of a continuous course
     of medical treatment; the doctrine is based upon the principle
     that it is unfair to bar a plaintiff who has been subjected to
     a series of treatments that were negligently administered
     simply because the plaintiff is unable to identify the one
     treatment that produced his injury.

5.   Limitation of actions -- medical malpractice -- continuous-treatment
     doctrine not applicable. -- The supreme court concluded that
     appellants' complaint was based upon an assertion of a
     continuing tort and that even if the physicians' inaction
     could be regarded as a basis for a claim of negligence, it was
     consummated upon the performance of the surgery and did not
     give rise to circumstances that would make appropriate the
     application of the continuous-treatment doctrine.


     Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Tom Smitherman, Judge;
affirmed.
     Andrew L. Clark, for appellant.
     Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: J. Phillip Malcom and Fran C.
Hickman, for appellees.

     Ray Thornton, Justice. 
     This is an appeal from a trial court's order dismissing a    
medical malpractice case as untimely filed.  Appellant Patrick  
Wright and his wife, Elizabeth, brought an action against two
cardiologists, Dr. Bimlendra Sharma and Dr. B.V. Pai, alleging that
they were negligent in causing Mr. Wright to undergo an unnecessary
pericardiectomy.  The Wrights argued to the trial court that the
doctors undertook a continuous course of treatment of Mr. Wright
for pericarditis, and that this tolled the statute of limitations. 
We hold that the trial court was correct in determining that the
continuous-treatment doctrine did not toll the applicable two-year
statute of limitations, Ark. Code Ann.  16-114-203 (Supp. 1995).
     When the running of the statute of limitations is raised as a
defense, the defendant has the burden of affirmatively pleading the
defense.  First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Stoltz, 311 Ark. 313,