2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-9-2008 

# F a r r el l v . AI DuP on t H o s p
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3664

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" F a r r e l l v . AI DuP on t H osp " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1779. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1779

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 06-3664 HOLLY FARRELL, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ASHLEY MCARDLE, A MINOR, DECEASED; HOLLY FARRELL 1, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER OWN RIGHT, Appellants

v. THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION; THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION; M.D. WILLIAM I. NORWOOD M.D., PH.D.; DEBORAH A. DAVIS, M.D.; RUSSELL RAPHAELY, M.D.; P. KERINS, PERFUSIONIST; PAUL KERINS, Perfusionist, c/o A.I. DuPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 04-cv-03877) District Judge: Hon. Berle M. Schiller Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 6, 2007 Before: McKEE, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 9, 2008)

________________ 

### OPINION

________________

### 2 McKEE, Circuit Judge

. Holly Farrell, individually and as the ad ministratrix of the estate of Ashley McArdle, her deceased minor daughter, appe als the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants based upon the court’s conclusion that Farrell’s wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice was barred by the statute of limitations. We will affirm. Because we write primarily for the parties, we need not recite the facts or procedural history of this case. Farrell makes two arguments in support of her appeal. First, she argues that the district court erre d by finding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concea lment. In its thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court explained why the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply to Farrell’s suit. Farrell v. The A.I. duPont Hospital for Children , 2006 WL 2035146 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2006). We can add little to the district court’s excellent analysis. Therefore, we will affirm the di strict court’s grant of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds substantially for th e reasons set forth in the district court’s well reasoned opinion. Farrell’s second argument on appeal does not appear to have been presented to the district court, and is therefore waived. Nevertheless, we will briefly explain why the argument lacks merit. Farrell contends th at defendant William I. Norwood, M.D., Ph.D, as a physician, was deemed to have a fiduciary relationship with her as Ashley’s mother

### 3 and, therefore, had a duty to inform Farre ll of the potential risk of surgery and postoperative care. She further contends thatNorwood’s alleged breach of that duty somehow tolled the statute of limitations. We disagree. The physician-patient relationship here ar ose in Delaware, all medical treatment occurred in Delaware and Ashley died in De laware. Therefore, Delaware law applies. See Troxel v. A.I. duPont Institute , 636 A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. Super. 1994) (state law where medical treatment was provided gene rally governs substantive law). Under Delaware law, a physician’s relationship to his/her patient and a “breach of a fiduciary responsibility . . . has no relevance to [a] statute of limitations issue.” Shockley v. Dyer , 456 A.2d 798, 800 (Del. 1983). See also Tilden v. Anstreicher , 367 A.2d 632, 634 (Del. 1976). Accordingly, we will affirm.