Title: Echols v. Keeler

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Echols v. Keeler1987 WY 47735 P.2d 730Case Number: 86-242Decided: 04/17/1987Supreme Court of Wyoming
Clarence 
ECHOLS, Appellant (Plaintiff)

 
 
v.

 
 
Dr. R. 
D. KEELER, Appellee (Defendant)

 
 
Alfred 
G. Kaufman, Jr., signed the brief of Appellant and presented oral 
argument.

 
 
David A. 
Scott of Murane & Bostwick, signed the brief of Appellee and presented oral 
argument. 

 
 
Brown, 
C.J., and Thomas, Cardine, Urbigkit, and Macy, JJ. 

 
 
CARDINE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     This is a medical 
malpractice case. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in 
dismissing appellant's complaint for the reason that the claim stated therein 
was barred by the statute of limitations.

 
 

[¶2.]     We 
affirm.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3.]     On August 27, 1981, 
appellant injured his back at work. On September 11, 1981, he sought treatment 
from appellee, Dr. Keeler, a chiropractor. Dr. Keeler took X rays of the 
cervical and lumbar areas of appellant's back and performed "adjustments" 
intended to relieve appellant's pain. Appellant returned for treatment several 
times after the initial visit and further "adjustments" were administered by Dr. 
Keeler. On September 28, 1981, during appellant's seventh visit, Dr. Keeler 
observed that appellant was experiencing pain in the thoracic area of his back 
which "appeared to be progressing." Dr. Keeler took X rays of the thoracic area 
which revealed a "compression fracture of the T12 vertebrae" and "deterioration 
of T7-T8 disc space." On October 6, 1981, Dr. Keeler referred appellant to an 
orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Landon, for further evaluation. After October 6, 1981, 
appellant had no further contact with Dr. Keeler.

 
 

[¶4.]     On October 22, 1981, 
appellant was hospitalized for neurogenic bladder, which is defined as 
"defective functioning of bladder due to impaired innervation." Stedman's 
Medical Dictionary (5th Ed. 1982). He was referred to Dr. Cole who examined 
appellant and referred him to Dr. Gordy, a neurosurgeon, who immediately 
performed surgery upon appellant's back. Tissue samples obtained during the 
surgery revealed a bacterial infection in appellant's spine. After the surgery, 
appellant was treated by Dr. Landon and two other specialists, Dr. Bailey and 
Dr. Lyford, for the damage caused by the infection, which included impairment of 
the functioning of appellant's legs and bladder.

 
 

[¶5.]     On May 8, 1985, 
approximately three and one-half years after he had last been seen by Dr. 
Keeler, appellant filed a malpractice action against Dr. Keeler alleging 
negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of his back injury. At the time the 
action was filed, appellant was still being treated by Drs. Cole, Lyford, Bailey 
and Landon. On August 12, 1986, the district court dismissed appellant's 
complaint, finding that it was barred by the statute of 
limitations.

CONTINUOUS 
TREATMENT RULE

 
 

[¶6.]     Appellant contends that 
he is receiving a continuous course of treatment from Drs. Keeler, Landon, Cole, 
Lyford, and Bailey for the same injury which is the subject of this action and 
that, therefore, the two-year statute of limitations had not run at the time of 
filing his complaint. Section 1-3-107, 
W.S.1977, prescribes the limitation period for bringing a medical 
malpractice action. In pertinent part the statute 
provides:

 
 
"(a) A 
cause of action arising from an act, error or omission in the rendering of 
licensed or certified professional or health care services shall be brought 
within the greater of the following times:

"(i) 
Within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, except 
that a cause of action may be instituted not more than two (2) years after 
discovery of the alleged act, error or omission, if the claimant can establish 
that the alleged act, error or omission was:

"(A) Not 
reasonably discoverable within a two (2) year period; or

"(B) The 
claimant failed to discover the alleged act, error or omission within the two 
(2) year period despite the exercise of due diligence."

 
 

[¶7.]     Appellant argues that 
his negligence claim against Dr. Keeler is not barred by the statute of 
limitations. We disagree. In Metzger v. 
Kalke, Wyo., 
709 P.2d 414, 417 (1985), we adopted the "continuous 
treatment" rule which provides that

 
 
"the 
act, error or omission which starts the running of the statute of limitations 
against medical malpractice actions is the termination of the course of 
treatment for the same or related illnesses or injuries."

 
 
"Termination" 
of treatment has reference to the practitioner against whom claim is made. We 
identified the following rationale underlying the continuous treatment 
rule:

 
 
"'In the 
treatment of a patient the diagnosis might change from time to time, and it is 
commonly accepted in the medical profession that the diagnosis, in the first 
instance, is not binding on the physician. He should have the right, during the 
course of treatment, to change the diagnosis. * * * *

 
 
"'* * * 
* The diagnosis referred to was a continuing biweekly one, and each time an 
incorrect diagnosis was made and an incorrect treatment applied, plaintiff's 
injuries were extended. It was not the error in the diagnosis originally made by 
defendant but its adherence thereto and course of treatment that brought about 
the injuries.'" Metzger v. Kalke, supra, at 417 (quoting Williams v. Elias, 
140 Neb. 656, 
1 N.W.2d 121 (1941)).

 
 

[¶8.]     These policy 
considerations are also discussed in 1 D. Louisell 
and H. Williams, Medical Malpractice, para. 13.08 
(1986):

 
 
"The 
so-called 'continuous treatment' rule has been defended on the grounds of 
fairness as well as on the basis of logic. Certainly it would not be equitable 
to bar a plaintiff who, for example, has been subjected to a series of radiation 
treatments in which the radiologist negligently and repeatedly administered an 
overdosage, simply because the plaintiff is unable to identify the one treatment 
that produced his injury. Indeed, in such a situation no single treatment did 
cause the harm; rather it was the result of several treatments, a cumulative 
effect. From the point of view of the physician, it would seem reasonable that 
if he has made a mistake, a misdiagnosis, for example, he is entitled to the 
opportunity to correct the error before harm ensues. And, as one court has put 
it, 'It would be absurd to require a wronged patient to interrupt corrective 
efforts by serving a summons on the physician.'" (Footnote 
omitted.)

 
 
The 
policies behind the continuous treatment rule would not be served by applying it 
in the manner suggested by appellant in this case. Plaintiff here is not 
prejudiced by an inability to identify the treatment which might have caused his 
harm, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that Dr. Keeler had any 
desire to retain appellant as a patient and correct any error he might have 
made.

 
 

[¶9.]     For purposes of 
appellant's malpractice action against Dr. Keeler, the only relevant course of 
treatment began on September 11, 1981, when appellant first visited Dr. Keeler 
and ended, at the latest, on October 6, 1981, when appellant last saw Dr. 
Keeler. After referral, Dr. Keeler did not continue as appellant's doctor nor 
was he associated with or engaged in assisting the doctors thereafter treating 
appellant. Thus the statute began to run, at the very latest, on October 6, 
1981, and the time within which this action could be brought expired two years 
later, on October 6, 1983. Appellant did not file his complaint until May 8, 
1985. The district court did not err in determining that the complaint was 
untimely filed. Appellant understandably did not claim that the statutory period 
was extended under the "discovery" provisions of the statute of limitations. See 
§ 1-3-107(a)(i), W.S.1977. Accordingly we do 
not address that potential claim.

 
 

[¶10.]  Affirmed.