Case Name: Catherine M. JACKSON, Appellant, v. George A. GEORGOPOLOUS, M.D., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-10-04
Citations: 552 So. 2d 215
Docket Number: No. 88-03093
Parties: Catherine M. JACKSON, Appellant, v. George A. GEORGOPOLOUS, M.D., Appellee.
Judges: RYDER, A.C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 552
Pages: 215–221

Head Matter:
Catherine M. JACKSON, Appellant, v. George A. GEORGOPOLOUS, M.D., Appellee.
No. 88-03093.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 4, 1989.
Robert F. McAuley, Tampa, for appellant.
John L. Holcomb of Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PARKER, Judge.
In this medical malpractice suit brought for the death of plaintiff's husband, we affirm the final judgment for defendant which was entered pursuant to a directed verdict determining that the two-year statute of limitations under section 95.11(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), barred the suit. This case involves when that two-year period began to run and whether it was tolled by fraudulent concealment.
Between December 25, 1984, when the decedent entered the hospital, and February 23, 1985, when he died in the hospital, Dr. Georgopolous performed four operations on the decedent. Therefore, the incident giving rise to any cause of action for medical malpractice had to have occurred between those dates. Any injury which may have caused the death also occurred between those dates. The family investigation, however, was not begun until February of 1986, and the suit was not filed until August of 1987.
The plaintiff knew that Dr. Georgopolous performed the surgery, and plaintiff had been aware of the decedent's seriously deteriorating condition thereafter and prior to his death at the hospital. Decedent's hospital records were available and not denied to his family. His death certificate, which the decedent's family received shortly after his death, indicated the nature of the surgery and of the injury.
The death certificate attributed the death to "multiple organ failure due to or as a consequence of . sepsis from duodenal cutaneous fistula due to or as a consequence of repaired abdominal exploration secondary to bowel obstruction due to adhesions." This can be read as meaning generally that death resulted from:
—sepsis ["a toxic condition resulting from the multiplication of pathogenic bacteria and their products in a region of infection and their absorption into the blood stream," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2070 (1970)],
—from a fistula ["an abnormal congenital or acquired passage leading from an abscess or hollow organ to the body surface or from one hollow organ to another and permitting passage of fluids (as pus) or secretions," id. at 859],
—in the duodenum ["part of the small intestine," id. at 702],
—due to exploratory abdominal surgery, or repair thereof, involving a bowel obstruction from adhesions ["the abnormal union of surfaces normally separate by the formation of new fibrous tissue resulting from an inflammatory process," id. at 26].
The statute of limitations bars this action. The plaintiff was aware of decedent's seriously deteriorating condition prior to his death at the hospital after his surgery. His hospital records were available and not denied to his family-. His death certificate, which is described above, was also available to the family, and, in fact, was read at the decedent's funeral by at least one of decedent's sons more than two years prior to the filing of suit. As the trial court noted, "[I]f [defendant] told them the precise facts as he knew them ., they'd have no more than they did when they got the death certificate."
In Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25, 35 (Fla.1976), the supreme court, quoting from Morgan v. Koch, 419 F.2d 993, 997 (7th Cir.1969), stated "the statute [of limitations] is tolled only for those who remained ignorant through no fault of their own.... The party seeking protection [from the effect of the statute] must have exercised reasonable care and diligence in seeking to learn the facts.... " In this case, the plaintiff, with due diligence, could have determined what the death certificate meant, either from use of a dictionary or from consultation with someone familiar with that type of terminology. The plaintiff failed to pursue timely any action she may have had and is now barred because she filed her lawsuit six months late.
Further, we find no evidence of fraudulent concealment by Dr. Georgopo-lous so as to toll the statute of limitations. There was no affirmative misrepresentation by Dr. Georgopolous of the injury to decedent or of the surgical incident resulting in that injury. See Nardone, 333 So.2d at 35, 39-40. We agree.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., concurs.
LEHAN, J., concurs specially with opinion.