A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary15,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

VA LERI E AN N G RI FF I THS- RA ST,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. S U L Z E R S P IN E T E C H , a M in n e so ta corpor at i on al s o know n as Z i m m er S p i n e ; P RA VE E N G. P RA S AD, a n in d iv id u a l,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 4279 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 2 - CV - 1 2 6 7 - DAK)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff-ap p ell an t V alerie A n n G ri ffith s-R ast ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t t o d efen d an ts- ap p ell ee s S u lzer S p ine T ec h (S u lzer) and Pr avee n G . Pr as ad, M . D . M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tunderw enta bac k s ur geryon-2-

A ugus t3, 1998, dur i ng w hi ch D r . Pr as ad i m pl ant ed a “ B A K C age” m anufa ctur ed bySul zeri nt o M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as t ’ s s pi ne. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as ts ubs equent l ys er ved D r , Pr as ad w i t h a not i ce of i nt entt o comm ence act i on on N ovember 26, 2001, and fi l ed hercompl ai nton N ovember 26, 2002, al l egi ng a vi ol at i on byD r . Pr as ad, of t he U t ah H eal t h C ar e M al pr act i ce A ct , U t ah C ode A nn. §§ 78- 14- 1 t hr ough 7 8 -1 4 -1 6 (1 9 9 8 ), an d a v io latio n b yS u lze r o f th e U tah P ro d u c t L iab ili tyA c t, U t ah C ode A nn. §§ 78- 15- 1 t hr ough 78- 15- 6 ( 1998) . T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o D r . Pr as ad on the gr ound t hatt he cl ai m agai ns thi m w as barr ed byt he tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on found i n § 78- 14- 4( 1) and thatt he l i m i t at i on per i od i n t hats t atut e w as nott ol l ed byappl i cat i on of § 78- 12- 35. T he d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to S u lze r o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e c laim a g a in s t it w a s b a rr e d b yth e tw o -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n fo u n d in § 7 8 -1 5 -3 . M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tappea l ed, and w e exe r ci s e ourj ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. A . St andar d of R evi ew “W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, a p p lyin g th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd u s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” Si m m s v. O kla. ex rel . D ep’tof MentalHealth & Su bst an ce A bu se Servs. , 165 F. 3d 1321, 1326 (10t h C i r. 19 99 ). S um m aryj ud gm ent i s approp ri at e “i f t he p l eadings, depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he aff i davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand-3-

t hatt he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a s um m aryj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . A s t atut e of l i m i t at i on defe ns e i s an affi r m at i ve defens e. See Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( c) . W her e a de fenda nts eeks s um m aryj udgm enton t he bas i s of an a ffi r m at i ve defens e, [t ] he defendant. . . m us tdemonst r at e thatno di s put ed mat er i al fac t exi s t s r egar di ng t he affi r m at i ve defens e as s er t ed. I f t he defendant m e e ts th is in iti a l b u rd e n , the p lain tiff m u st th e n d e m o n stra te w ith s peci fi ci t yt he exi s t ence of a di s put ed mat er i al fac t . I f t he pl ai nt i ff fa i l s t o ma k e s u c h a s h o wi n g , t h e a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e b a r s h i s c l a i m, and the defendanti s t hen ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm entas a mat t er o f l a w. Hu tch in so n v . P

feil , 1 0 5 F .3 d 5 6 2 , 5 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

B . C l ai m A gai ns tD r . Pr as ad U nder§ 78- 14- 8: N o m al pr act i ce a ct i on agai ns ta hea l t h car e pr ovi derm aybe i ni t i at ed u n les s a n d u n til th e p lain tiff g iv e s th e p ro sp e c tiv e d e fe n d a n t o r h is e x e c u to r o r su c c e ss o r, at le a st n in e tyd a y s’ p rio r n o tice o f in ten t to c o m m e n c e a n a c tio n . M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as ts er ved D r . Pr as ad a not i ce of i nt entt o comm ence act i on on N ovember 26, 2001. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed D r . Pr as ad s um m aryj udgm enton t he gr ound t hatt he tw o- y earm al pr act i ce s t atut e of l i m i t at i on barr ed M s. G ri ffith s-R ast’s claim b ec au se sh e sh o u ld h av e d isco v ere d h er leg al i njury pr i ort o N ovember 26, 1999. I tfur t herhel d t hatt he l i m i t at i on per i od w as not to lled b ya n yp e rio d s o f tim e d u rin g w h ich D r. P ra sa d w a s a b se n t f ro m th e sta te of U t ah. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues t hatthe gr antof s um m aryj udgm entw as-4-

im p ro p e r b e c a u se a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld h a v e fo u n d (1 ) th a t th e tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f l i mi t a t i o n s h o u l d n o th a v e b e g u n t o ru n u n t i l J u l y2 , 2 0 0 1 , t h e d a t e s h e c l a i ms s he di s cover ed herl egal i nj ur y , and ( 2) t hatt he l i m i t at i on per i od w as t ol l ed by § 78- 12- 35. 1 . D isco v eryo f L eg al Injury U n d er § 7 8 -14 -4(1 ): N o m al pr act i ce a ct i on agai ns ta hea l t h car e pr ovi derm aybe br ought unl es s i ti s comm ence d w i t hi n t w o y ear s aft ert he pl ai nt i ff orpat i ent di s cover s , ort hr ough t he us e of r eas onabl e di l i gence s houl d have di s cover ed the i nj ur y , w hi cheve rfi r s toccur s , butnott o exce ed four y ear s aft ert he dat e of the al l eged a ct , om i s s i on, negl ector occurr ence . T he tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on i n t hi s s ect i on begi ns t o run w hen “the i nj ur ed per s on knew ors houl d have know n t hat[s he] had s us t ai ned an i nj ur yand thatt he i nj ur yw as caus ed bynegl i gentact i on. ” Foi lv. B al l i nger , 601 P. 2d 144, 148 (U t ah 1 97 9). “[D ]i scoveryof legal i njur y , t herefore, enco m passes both aw areness of p hy si cal i njur yand kn ow l edg e t hat the inj uryi s o r m ay b e a ttrib u ta b le to negl igence . ” C ol l i ns v. Wi ls on , 984 P. 2d 960, 966 ( U t ah 1999) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “[A ] l l t hati s r equi r ed t o t r i ggert he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s s uffi ci ent info rm ati o n to p u t plainti ff [] o n n o ti ce to m ak e f u rt h er inq u iryif [sh e] h arb o rs doubt s orques t i ons . ” Macr is v. Scul pt ur ed Sof

tw ar e, Inc. , 24 P. 3d 984, 990 (U ta h 2 0 0 1 ).T he ar gum entpr es ent ed i n herr es pons e w as t hats he di s cover ed the 1 m a lp ra c tic e in N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 8 . See A pl t . A pp. at210. -5- M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tt es t i fi ed i n herdepos i t i on t hat“i m m edi at el yaft ert he [A ugus t3, 1998, s ur gi cal ] pr ocedur e, ” w hi l e s he w as s t i l l i n t he hos pi t al rec o v ering , sh e feltthat there w as a p rob lem w ith the c ag e im p lantati o n , an d there w as a pr obl em w i t h w hatD r . Pr as ad di d, and that“[e ] very t hi ng w entw r ong. ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 1 at77- 78, 80. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tal s o t es t i fi ed thats he cont act ed a l aw y eraboutt he pr obl ems w i t h herback s ur gery“a c oupl e of w eeks aft er[her ] s ur gery ” w hen s he “w as n’ tget t i ng anybet t er , ” and thats he s i gned an a g re e m e n t r e ta in in g th e a tto rn e y ’s s e rv ic e s a t th a t tim e . Id . at104. Fur t her , on N ov em ber 10, 1998 , ano t her doc t or i nfo rm ed M s. G ri ffi t hs-R astt hat there w as a d e fe c t w ith th e c a g e im p la n ta tio n . Id . , V ol. 2 at 204-05 , 21 0. M s. G ri ffi t hs-R ast p ro d u c e d n o e v id e n c e in re sp o n se to D r. P ra sa d ’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n to r efut e thes e fa ct s , admi t t i ng t hats he had di s cover ed the mal pr act i ce i n N ovember 1 9 9 8 . See A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at 210. 1 N evert hel es s , M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues t hats he di d notdi s coverherl egal i nj ur yunt i l J ul y2, 2001, w hen s he r ece i ved a r epor tfr om a D r . St ephen W ood s t at i ng t hathe had be en t ol d byt he U t ah M al pr act i ce I ns ur ance as s oci at i on t hat “ther e have been numer ous m al pr act i ce s ui t s fi l ed due t o compl i cat i ons r es ul t i ng fr om ‘ T he C age’ . . . [and thathe] ha[d] been t ol d t hatt he pr ocedur e i s no l onger r ecomm ended. ” A pl t . A pp. at200. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues t hatt he-6-

det er m i nat i on of w hen s he di s cover ed herl egal i nj ur yi s a fa ctual ques t i on not s u ita b le fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. M s . G ri ffith s -R a s t m is in te rp re ts th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta n d a rd . T he ques t i on i s w hethert her e i s a “ genui ne is s u e a s to a n ym a te ri a l fa c t,” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ( emphasi s added) , and “a n i s s ue of mat er i al fac ti s genui ne o n lyif th e n o n m o v a n t p re se n ts fa c ts s u c h th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld fin d in fa v o r o f th e n o n m o v a n t,” G ar r is on v. G am br o, Inc. , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 9 3 3 , 9 3 5 (10 th C ir . 2005) . H er e, no r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hatM s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tdi d nothave su fficie n t in fo rm a tio n to p u t h e r o n n o tice to c o n d u c t a f u rth e r in q u iryin to w hethert her e w as m al pr act i ce unt i l aft erN ovember 26, 1999. I n fac t , s he ad m itted th at sh e b eli ev ed that there w as so m ethin g w ron g w ith D r. S m ith ’s per for m ance i m m edi at el yaft ert he A ugus t1998 s ur geryand thats he hi r ed an at t or neya coupl e of w eeks l at ert o conductan i nqui r yi nt o pos s i bl e mal pr act i ce. 2. T ol l i ng of St atut e of Li m i t at i on M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues i n t he al t ernat i ve thateven i f s he w as aw ar e of herl egal i nj ur ypr i ort o N ovember 26, 1999, t he l i m i t at i on per i od s houl d have been t oll ed fo r s om e of thatt i m e beca use (1) D r. P ras ad co nd ucted bu si ness out s i de of U t ah forper i ods of t i m e betw een he rs ur geryand Sept ember 2000, and ( 2) D r . Pr as ad moved fr om U t ah t o C al i for ni a i n Sept ember 2000. U nder § 78- 12- 35:-7-

W her e a c aus e of a ct i on acc rues agai ns ta per s on w hen he i s outof t he s t at e, t he ac t i on m aybe comm ence d w i t hi n t he t er m as l i m i t ed by t hi s chapt eraft erhi s r etur n t o t he s t at e. I f af t era ca us e of a ct i on ac cru es h e d ep arts fro m the s tat e, th e ti m e o f h is ab sen ce is no t part of t he t i m e l i m i t ed fort he comm ence m entof t he ac t i on. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues t hati ti s a di s put ed genui ne i s s ue of factw hether D r . Pr as ad w as abs entforenough t i m e s o t hatt ol l i ng t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i on for t hatper i od of t i m e w oul d r es ul ti n t he s t atue notbei ng vi ol at ed. She ar gues t hat t he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have c onduct ed a s epar at e tr i al t o deci de thi s i s s ue. T he di s t r i ctcour thel d t hatm edi cal m al pr act i ce a ct i ons w er e exc ept ed fr om t he t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on of § 78- 12- 35 beca us e under§ 78- 14- 4( 2) t he tw o- y ear l i m i t at i on per i od “s hal l appl yt o al l per s ons , r egar dl es s of m i nor i t yorot herl egal d isab il ityu n d er S ec ti o n 7 8 -12 -36 o r any otherpr ovis i on of the law .” (e m p h a sis added) . T he courthel d t hatt hi s pr ovi s i on w as an “e xpl i ci texce pt i on t o s ect i on 7 8 -12 -35 ” a n d that the lim it ati o n p eriod w as n o t t o ll ed d u ri n g D r. P rasa d ’s abs ence s . W e agr ee. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues on appea l t hatt he t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on i n § 78- 12- 35 is a p p lica b le d e sp ite th e lan g u a g e in § 7 8 -1 4 -4 (2 ). S h e first d ire c ts u s to Jens en v. I H CHos pi t als , Inc. , 944 P. 2d 327, 333 n. 3 ( U t ah 1997) . I n t hatfoot not e, t he U t ah Supr eme C our tnot ed thatt he fa m i l yof a w om an w ho al l egedl ydi ed of m al pr act i ce a r gued thatt heys houl d be abl e t o fi l e hers ui tout s i de the tw o- y ear sta tu te o f

lim itatio n b e c a u se u n d e r § 7 8 -1 2 -3 7 :-8-

[I ] f a pe r s on ent i t l ed t o br i ng an ac t i on di es befor e the expi r at i on of t he t i m e l i m i t ed fort he comm ence m entt her eof, and the ca us e of ac ti o n su rviv es, an ac ti o n m ayb e c o m m en ce d b y[h er] r epr es ent at i ves aft ert he expi r at i on of t hatt i m e and w i t hi n one y ear f ro m [ h e r] d e a th . T he U t ah Supr eme C our trul ed aga i ns tt he fa m i l yon t he gr ound t hatt he s t atut e of lim ita tio n h a d ru n p ri o r t o th e w o m a n ’s d e a th . Jens en there fo re d o es n o t sup p o rt M s. G ri ffi t hs-R ast ’s argum ent. A rul i ng t hat § 78-12 -37 did no tapp l ybecau se t he li m i t at i on peri od exp i red pri or t o the deced ent’ s deat h, i s nott he s ame as rul i ng t hat§ 78- 12- 37 w o u ldh a v e a p p lie d if th e lim ita tio n p e ri o d h a d n o t e x p ir e d . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatt he courteven c ons i der ed the effec tof § 78- 14- 4( 2) on § 78- 12- 37. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tal s o ar gues t hatt he U t ah Supr eme C our tfound that § 78- 14- 4( 2) w as uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o m i nor s . I n L e e v . G a u fin , 867 P. 2d 572, 580- 81 ( U t ah 1993) , t he courtfound t hat§ 78- 14- 4( 2) cr eat ed an exce pt i on t o § 78- 12- 36, w hi ch gene r al l yt ol l s l i m i t at i on per i ods as t o cl ai m s of m ino rs un ti l th e m ino r reac h es th e a g e o f m ajority . S ince M s. G ri ffith s-R ast’s b rie f d o e s n o m o re th a n n o te th a t Lee found § 78- 14- 4( 2) uncons t i tut i onal i n t hat i tnul l i fi ed § 78- 12- 36, w e ca n onl yas s um e thats he i s as s er t i ng, w i t hout a rg u m e n t, th a t it is a ls o u n c o n s titu tio n a l w h e n a p p lie d to n u llif yto § 7 8 -1 2 -3 5 . W e di s agr ee. T he U t ah Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Lee w a s p re m ise d o n th e fa c t th a t, sin c e m in o rs h a d n o leg a l ca p a c ityto su e in U tah , ap p lica tio n o f § 7 8 -1 4 -4 (2 ) inU n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 4(e ): 2 U nl es s ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byfede r al l aw , s er vi ce upon a n i ndi vi dual fr om w hom a w ai verhas notbeen obt ai ned and f i l ed . . . m aybe effected i n an yj ud i ci al dis t ri ctof the U nit ed S t at es: (1 ) p u rsu a n t to th e law o f th e sta te in w h ich th e d istric t co u rt is l ocat ed, ori n w hi ch s er vi ce i s effect ed, fort he s er vi ce of a s um m ons upon t he defendanti n an ac t i on br oughti n t he court s of gene r al j ur i s di ct i on of t he St at e; or ( 2) bydel i ver i ng a copyof t he s um m ons and of the compl ai ntt o t he ind ividu al pe rson all yo r byleav ing co p ies t h ere o f a t th e ind ividu al’s d w e lli n g h o u se o r u su a l p lac e o f a b o d e w ith so m e p e rso n o f su itab le age a nd di s cr et i on t hen r es i di ng t her ei n orbydel i ver i ng a copyof t he s um m ons and of the compl ai ntt o an age ntauthor i zed by app oint m ent orbyl aw t o recei ve servi ce of process. U n d er the p erti n en t parts of U tah R . C iv. P. 4(d )(1): ( d) ( 1) Per s onal s ervi ce. T he s um m ons and compl ai ntm aybe s er ved i n anys t at e orj udi ci al di s t r i ctof t he U ni t ed St at es . . . . I f t he per s on t o be s er ved r efus es t o acc epta copyof t he pr oces s , s er vi ce s h a l l b e s u ffi c i e n ti f

t h e p e r s o n s e r v i n g t h e s a me s h a l l s t a t e t h e n a me of t he pr oces s and offert o del i vera copyt her eof. Per s onal s er vi ce shal l be m ade as fo l l ow s: ( d) ( 1) ( A ) U pon anyi ndi vi dual . . . bydel i ver i ng a copyof t he (c o n tin u e d ...) -9- s om e ca s es w oul d r es ul ti n t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i on runni ng pr i ort o t he mi nor c o m in g o f

a g e a n d b e in g le g a lly a b le to b ri n g h is o r h e r a c tio n . Lee , 867 P. 2d at 580. C ons equent l y , appl i cat i on of § 78- 14- 4( 2) w oul d depr i ve s om e mi nor s of a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s y s te m . Id . H er e, t her e i s no s uch pr obl em. C ons i der i ng t he pr ovi s i ons of Fed. R . C i v. P. 4( e) , U t ah R . C i v. P. 4, and U t ah’ s l ong- ar m s t atut e, § 78- 27- 24, i ti s cl eart hata pot ent i al defe ndant ’ s fl i ghtt o anothers t at e w i l l not

2( . . . cont i nued) 2 s um m ons and the compl ai ntt o t he i ndi vi dual per s onal l y , orby l eavi ng a copyatt he i ndi vi dual ’ s dw el l i ng hous e orus ual pl ace of abode w i t h s om e per s on of s ui t abl e age and di s cr et i on t her e r es i di ng, orbydel i ver i ng a copyof t he s um m ons and the compl ai ntt o an agentauthor i zed byappoi nt m entorbyl aw t o r ece i ve s ervi ce of p ro c e s s [ .] U ndert he pert i nentpar t s of § 78- 27- 24: A n yp e rso n . . . w h e th e r o r n o t a c iti z e n o r re sid e n t o f [ U tah ], w h o in per s on ort hr ough an age ntdoes anyof t he fol l ow i ng enumer at ed act s , s ubm i t s hi m s el f, and i f an i ndi vi dual , hi s per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of t he court s of [U t ah] as t o any cl ai m ar i s i ng outof orr el at ed t o: ( 1) t he tr ans act i on of anybus i nes s w i t hi n t hi s s t at e; ( 2) contr act i ng t o s uppl ys er vi ces orgoods i n t hi s s t at e; ( 3) t he ca us i ng of anyi nj ur yw i t hi n t hi s s t at e w hethert or t i ous orby b r e a c h o f

w a r r a n t y; M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tal s o r ai s es a br i ef a r gum entt hatunder§ 78- 14- 8 s he 3 w as ent i t l ed t o a 120- dayenl ar gement of t he four - y earl i m i t at i on per i od i m pos ed b yth e sta tu te o f

re p o se fo u n d in § 7 8 -1 4 -4 (1 ). T h is a rg u m e n t is m e ritles s. F irst, t he di s t r i ctcour thel d t hatM s . G r i ffi t hs - R as t ’ s act i on w as barr ed undert he m al pr act i ce a ct ’ s t w o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on, nott he four - y ears t atut e of r epos e. Second, under§ 78- 14- 8, a mal pr act i ce a ct i on m aynotbe comm ence d u n les s th e p ro sp e c tiv e d e fe n d a n t is g iv e n n o tice o f th e p lain tiff ’s in ten t to comm ence an ac t i on atl eas tni netyday s pr i ort o t he fi l i ng of t he s ui t . I f t he n o tice is s e rv e d “ les s th a n n in e tyd a y s p rio r to th e e x p ira tio n o f th e a p p lica b le tim e p e rio d , the tim e fo r c o m m e n c in g th e m a lp ra c tice a c tio n a g a in st th e h e a lth car e pr ovi ders hal l be ext ended t o 120 day s fr om t he dat e of s er vi ce of t he not i ce. ” Id . M s . G ri ffith s -R a s t s e rv e d h e r n o tic e o f in te n t in N o v e m b e r o f 2 0 0 1 . (c o n tin u e d ...) -10- i m m uni ze hi m fr om s ui t . D r . Pr as ad w as hi m s el f s er ved w i t h pr oces s aft erhe m oved t o C al i for ni a. 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 M s. G riffith s-R a st adm i t t edt hats he di s cover ed herl egal i nj ur yi n N ovember of 1998. T her efor e, even i f t he dat e thats he admi t t ed di s coveryi s us ed, t he tw oy ears t atut e of l i m i t at i on per i od r an i n N ovember 2000, a y earpr i ort o t he fi l i ng of hernot i ce. -11- C . C l ai m A gai ns tSul zer U n d e r § 7 8 -1 5 -3 , a le g a l ac tio n u n d e r th e U tah P ro d u c t L iab ili tyA c t: “s hal l be br oughtw i t hi n t w o y ear s fr om t he t i m e the i ndi vi dual w ho w oul d be t he c laim a n t in su c h a c tio n d isc o v e re d , o r in th e e x e rc ise o f d u e d ili g e n c e sh o u ld have di s cover ed, bot h t he harm and i t s caus e. ” The U t ah C our tof A ppeal s has hel d t hatbeca us e the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on i n § 78- 15- 3 runs fr om t he t i m e the pl ai nt i ff di s cover ed ors houl d have di s cover ed both t he harm and i t s “ca us e, ” t he r efe r ence t o “ca us e” i n t hats ect i on “t ol l s t he runni ng of t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i on unt i l t he pl ai nt i ff di s cover s , ori n t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence s houl d have di s cover ed, t he i dent i t yof t he manufactur er . ” A r agon v. C l overC l ub Foods C o. , 8 5 7 P .2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 (U tah C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ). B e c a u se M s. G riffith s-R a st d id n o t file hercompl ai ntunt i l N ovember 26, 2002, hercl ai m i s barr ed unl es s s he di d not di s cover , ori n t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence s houl d nothave di s cover ed, t hatt he B A K C age ha d i nj ur ed herand thatSul zerm anufa ctur ed the B A K C age unt i l aft er N ovember 26, 2000. M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tt es t i fi ed thats he fe l tas i f t her e w as a pr obl em w i t h t he cage i m pl ant at i on w hi l e s he w as i n t he hos pi t al i m m edi at el yaft erhers ur geryon A ugus t3, 1998; t hatt he B A K C age hurtand “fel t ” l i ke i tw as “defect i ve”; and-12-

th a t sh e h a d b e e n a b le to fe e l th a t th e B A K C a g e w a s d e fe c tiv e sin c e its im p lan tatio n . A p lt. A p p ., V o l. 1 a t 8 0 -8 1 , 1 0 1 -0 2 . B e c a u se a ll th a t is re q u ire d to s t ar tt he runni ng of t he l i m i t at i on per i od i s i nform at i on s uffi ci entt o putt he pl ai nt i ff on not i ce t o m ake f ur t heri nqui r y , ” Ma c ris , 2 4 P . 3 d at 99 0 , w e d o n ’t bel i eve a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hatM s . G r i ffi t hs - R as ts houl d nothave di s cover ed w i th t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence t hatt he B A K C age ha d i nj ur ed her unt i l aft erN ovember 26, 2000. T he more di ffi cul tques t i on i s w hether , as a mat t erof l aw , t hr ough t he exer ci s e of due di l i gence , s he s houl d have di s cover ed thatSul zerw as t he m an u fa cture r of

the B A K C ag e p ri o r t o N o v em b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 0 . T h e d istri ct co u rt corr ect l ynot ed i n anothercas e that“[g] ener al l y , t he ques t i on of w hen a pl ai nt i ff kn ew , or w i t h reasonab l e dil i gen ce shou l d h ave k no w n, of a c ause of act i on i s a ques t i on of fa ctfort he j ur y . ” McC ol l i n v. Synthes Inc. , 50 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1123 ( D . U t ah 1999) . A s not ed above , how ever , t he r el evantques t i on i s w hether t her e i s a “ genui ne iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t,” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ), an d “ a n iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t is g e n u in e o n lyif th e n o n m o v a n t p re se n ts fa c ts s u c h th a t a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld fin d in fa v o r o f th e n o n m o v a n t,” G ar r is on , 4 2 8 F .3 d a t 9 3 5 . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld fi nd t hatM s . G r i ffi t hs - R as thad exe r ci s ed due di l i gence i n di s cover i ng t hatSul zer w as t he manufactur erof t he B A K C age, and that“hercl ai m agai ns tSul zer - Spi ne w as nott ol l ed byherfai l ur e t o di s coveri t s i dent i t y . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at361.-13-

O n appea l , M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tar gues agai n t hats he di d notdi s covert hat s he had a l egal i nj ur yunt i l J ul y2, 2001, w hen D r . W ood’ s l et t ert ol d herabout ot herm al pr act i ce c l ai m s t hathad bee n r ai s ed. O nce s he di s cover ed thats he had a leg a l inju ry , sh e “ first c o m m e n c e d th e m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice p o rtio n o f h e r su it befor e pr ocee di ng w i t h t he pr oduct s l i abi l i t yas pect ” of he rs ui t . B r . of A pl t . at 3 5 . S h e a l l e g e s t h a ts h e d i d n o tb e g i n h e rp r o d u c tl i a b i l i t yc a s e a tt h e s a me t i me as herm edi cal m al pr act i ce c as e bec aus e “s he nee ded conf i r m at i on fr om D r . Pr as ad [r egar di ng] w ho t he manufactur erw as . ” Id . She ar gues t hatgi ven the “fa ct ” thats he di d notdi s coverherl egal i nj ur yunt i l J ul y2, 2001, and thats he di d notdi s covert hatSul zerm anufa ctur ed the B A K C age unt i l O ct ober4, 2002, “[a ] r eas onabl e j ur y[coul d] fi nd . . . t hats he di d notr eas onabl ydi s covery[s i c] t he name of t he m anufa ctur er of t he B A K C age unt i l O ct ober2002. ” B r . of TM A p lt. a t 3 9 -4 0 . W e di s agr ee. A s pr oper l ynot ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t , “[w ] hatcons t i tut es due di l i gence m us tbe t ai l or ed t o fi tt he ci r cumst ance s of ea ch ca s e. I ti s t hat d ili g e n c e w h ich is a p p ro p ria te to a c c o m p lish th e e n d so u g h t an d w h ich is r eas onabl ycal cul at ed t o do s o. ” A r agon , 8 5 7 P .2 d a t 2 5 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). It se e m s c lea r th a t in a n o rm a l ca se a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld n o t fin d th a t itw o u ld t ake ove rt w o y ear s t o det er m i ne the manufactur erof a tr ademar ked medi calSul zerpr es ent ed the cons entfor m s i gned byM r . G r i ffi t hs - R as ts how i ng 4 th a t s h e w a s g o in g to h a v e s p in a l f u s io n s u rg e ry w ith “ B A K c a g e s .” A p lt. A p p ., V ol . 2 at332, 341. I n M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as t ’ s appel l at e br i ef, s he not es t hatone of t he “a s s um pt i ons ” thats he had made, t hatD r . Pr as ad eve ntual l ycorr ect ed, w as t hatt he “BA K ” i n B A K C age w as a typogr aphi cal err orfort he w or d “bac k. ” B r . of A pl t . at35. -14- devi ce w hen t he par t y know s t he corr ect name of t hat devi ce. T he ques t i on t hen 4 b e c o me s wh e t h e rM s . Gr i ffi t h s - Ra s tp r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a two u l d a l l o w a re a so n a b le ju ryto fin d th a t ev e n if sh e h a d u se d “ d ili g e n c e w h ich is a p p ro p ria te to a c c o m p lis h th e e n d s o u g h t a n d w h ic h is re a s o n a b ly ca lc u la te d to d o s o ,” A r agon , 857 P. 2d at253, s he s houl d nothave a s cert ai ned the i dent i t yof t he m anufa ctur erpr i ort o N ovember 26, 2000. She pr es ent ed no s uch evi dence . I n fac t , M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tpr es ent ed the di s t r i ctcour tw i t h t he affi davi tof a p ara lega l th at w o rke d fo r he r att o rne yto h elp e x p lai n w h yith ad take n fo u r y ea rs t o det er m i ne the manufactur erof t he B A K C age. T he par al egal averr ed thatt he firm h a d c o n tra c ted w ith a n o u tsid e “ n u rse p a ra leg a l” w h o “ w a s e m p lo y e d to r es ear ch the cl ai m s agai ns tt he doct or . ” A pl t . A pp. at316. A ccor di ng t o t he a ffia n t, th e n u rs e p a ra le g a l “ p ro v id e d s o m e in te rn e t lite ra tu re ” fo r a “ L T -C a g e ,” and t hat M s. G ri ffi t hs-R ast ’s at t orneyw as “l ed to bel i eve thatt he L T -C age w as a r ece nt l yappr oved C age f r om t he s ame m anufa ctur erof t he B A K C age. ” Id . A ccor di ng t o M s . G r i ffi t hs - R as t , s he and he rat t or neyw entt o the O ct ober2002 m eet i ng w i t h D r . Pr as ad, “w i t h l i t er atur e conc erni ng a the [s i c] L T - C age pr oduct m anufa ctur ed bydi ffe r ent[s i c] companybel i evi ng t hatw as t he pr oducti m pl ant ed-15-

i nt o her , ” and D r . Pr as ad i nfor m ed them t hatt heyhad the w r ong devi ce. C ons equent l y , t he evi dence pr es ent ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d nots how t hat beca us e of the ci r cumst ance s of t he ca s e a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d have found t hat w i t h t he exe r ci s e of due di l i gence s he s houl d nothave di s cover ed thatSul zer m anufa ctur ed the B A K C age unt i l aft erN ovember 26, 2000. I ts how ed i ns t ead t hatbeca us e the out s i de nur s e par al egal l ed herat t or neyt o t he mi s under s t andi ng t hatt he “LT - C age” and the B A K C age w er e made byt he s ame com pany , s he m isid e n tifie d th e m a n u fa c tu re r a n d p ro c e e d e d u n d e r th a t m isid e n tific a tio n u n til t he O ct ober2002 m eet i ng w i t h D r . Pr as ad. I ti s t rue thatM s . G r i ffi t hs - R as tnot ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatSul zerhad gone thr ough a number of companyname changes and w as a for ei gn corpor at i on w i t ho ut a r egis t ered agen ti n U t ah. S he m ade n o argum ent, ho w ever, t hat these fa c ts im p e d e d h e r a b ility to id e n tif yS u lz e r a s th e m a n u fa c tu re r o f th e B A K C a g e . C ons equent l y , w e s ee no e r r ori n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent on t hi s i s s ue. D . C oncl us i on F o r t h e re aso n s set fo rt h ab o v e, th e d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j u d g me n tt o Dr . P r a s a d a n d S u l z e ri s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r t h e C o u rt B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge