Title: Iverson v. Lancaster
Citation: 158 N.W.2d 507
Docket Number: 8469, 8470
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 1968

158 N.W.2d 507 (1968) Florence J. IVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. E. G. LANCASTER, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic, Fargo, North Dakota, Defendants and Respondents. Howard IVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. E. G. LANCASTER, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic, Fargo, North Dakota, Defendants and Respondents. Nos. 8469, 8470. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 25, 1968. *508 Frederick E. Saefke, Jr., Bismarck, for appellants. Wattam, Vogel, Vogel, Bright &amp; Peterson, Fargo, for respondents. ERICKSTAD, Judge. This opinion covers two causes of action. The first was brought by Florence J. Iverson as plaintiff against W. E. G. Lancaster, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic as defendants. The second was brought by Florence's husband Howard as plaintiff against the same parties as defendants. The summonses were served on June 23, 1964, and the complaints on July 13, 1964. The essence of both complaints is that Dr. Lancaster negligently failed to diagnose *509 Mrs. Iverson's condition of hypertension, commonly known as high blood pressure, as due to coarctation of the aorta; that he advised her that because of her hypertension, she should not become pregnant; that he advised her that she should have a tuboligation so that she and her husband might be allowed to adopt children and that as a result she underwent a hysterectomy, which now prevents her from bearing children; and that subsequently he discovered that she had coarctation of the aorta and recommended corrective surgery, which resulted in the elimination of her hypertension. Among other things, the defendants denied in their answers that either the doctor or the clinic was in any respect negligent, and in separate defenses they asserted that the complaints were barred by N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18 because the causes of action accrued more than two years before the commencement of the lawsuits. The cases were consolidated for trial and came on for jury trial in the District Court of Cass County on January 17, 1966. When the plaintiffs rested their cases at the completion of the submission of their evidence, the defendants moved for a dismissal with prejudice of each of the causes of action and in the alternative for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion for dismissal. It is from the judgments entered on the orders dismissing the plaintiffs' complaints that the appeals are taken. Before we consider the specifications of error on the part of the Iversons we are asked by the defendants (whom we shall hereafter refer to as Dr. Lancaster) to determine whether the causes of action have been outlawed by § 28-01-18: North Dakota Century Code. By way of background it should be noted that after issue was joined but before trial Dr. Lancaster made a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the causes of action were outlawed by the statute of limitations. This motion was denied by the trial court without explanation. The facts pertinent to this issue are that Dr. Lancaster first saw Mrs. Iverson in July 1957; that she continued to see him for the treatment of high blood pressure from then until June 27, 1962; that on February 27, 1959, a hysterectomy was performed on Mrs. Iverson by Dr. Darner, after Dr. Lancaster had advised a tuboligation; that after further examination Dr. Lancaster, on June 27, 1962, discovered that she had a coarctation of the aorta and advised corrective surgery; and that on July 5, 1962, surgery for coarctation of the aorta was performed upon her at Minnesota Heart Hospital, eliminating her high blood pressure. Dr. Lancaster argues that because the actions were not commenced until June 1964, more than two years had elapsed after the causes of action had accrued, and thus they are outlawed by § 28-01-18. He contends that the causes of action accrued when the hysterectomy was performed on February 27, 1959. Among other citations he refers us to Milde v. Leigh, 75 N.D. 418, 28 N.W.2d 530, 173 A.L.R. 738 (1947); Linke v. Sorenson, 276 F.2d 151 (8th Cir. 1960); and what he describes as the "general rule," as contained in 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177. The part of the law review article cited as pertinent reads: Notwithstanding what was said in Milde and Linke (both of which arose in North Dakota) and the alleged general rule, we are of the opinion that neither of the causes of action in these appeals has been out-lawed by the statute of limitations for reasons we shall hereafter explain. The annotator of 80 A.L.R.2d 368 makes the following analysis: After studying the various approaches taken by the courts, the recent trend of decisions to depart from the "general rule," the indefinite language of our statute, and our belief that justice is best served when claims are adjudicated on their merits, we conclude that the best rule is that the limitation period commences to run against a malpractice action from the time the act of malpractice with resulting injury is, or by reasonable diligence could be, discovered. Jurisdictions adopting this rule are listed in 80 A.L.R.2d, at 388, under § 7 [b]. For cases following the discovery rule decided since the publication of that annotation see: Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, Hawaii, 433 P.2d 220 (1967); Waldman v. Rohrbaugh, 241 Md. 137, 215 A.2d 825 (1966); Johnson v. St. Patrick's Hospital, Mont., 417 P.2d 469 (1966); Berry v. Branner, Ore., 421 P.2d 996 (1966). In Johnson, speaking for the majority of the Montana Supreme Court, Justice John C. Harrison discussed the so-called general rule and the various exceptions to it and commented: He concluded the majority opinion as follows: It is interesting, in light of Dr. Lancaster's contention that Milde and Linke constitute precedent requiring us to follow the so-called general rule, that one of the justices of the Montana Supreme Court dissented in Johnson on the ground that the adoption of the Idaho rule overruled by implication precedent in Montana. In Berry the Oregon Supreme Court, in holding that the cause of action accrued at the time the plaintiff obtained knowledge *511 or reasonably should have obtained knowledge of the tort committed upon her person, overruled Vaughn v. Langmack, 236 Ore. 542, 390 P.2d 142 (1964), a decision rendered only two years earlier. We note the Oregon court's analysis of the trend away from the "general rule": That court's view of the objective of statutes limiting the time in which a malpractice action may be brought accords with our view: In Waldman the Maryland Court of Appeals concluded "that the right of action for injury or damage from malpractice may accrue when the patient knows or should know he has suffered injury or damage." Waldman v. Rohrbaugh, 241 Md. 137, 215 A.2d 825, 830 (1966). In that opinion it pointed out that "New Jersey and West Virginia have recently, in soul-searching opinions, reversed their prior adherence to the general rule and applied the time of discovery date." Waldman v. Rohrbaugh, supra, 830. In Yoshizaki the Hawaii Supreme Court, as recently as November 1967, after reviewing the approaches of the various courts to this problem and policy conflicts, concluded "that the statute does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant's negligence." Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, Hawaii, 433 P.2d 220, 223 (1967). It stated that its conclusion was consistent with the legislative prescription to avoid constructions which would lead to absurd results. It said the injustice of barring the plaintiff's action before she could reasonably have been aware that she had a claim was patent. *512 The essence of the causes of action in the appeals before us is that due to the alleged negligent failure of Dr. Lancaster to properly diagnose Mrs. Iverson's ailment she underwent an unnecessary sterilization. It is contended and the record bears out that the Iversons did not discover, nor could they by reasonable diligence have discovered, the doctor's alleged negligence until they were informed by him of the coarctation of Mrs. Iverson's aorta and of the remedial effect which would be obtained through corrective surgery. Under these circumstances we hold that the statute of limitations did not commence to run until June 27, 1962, when they were given the information by Dr. Lancaster. Both Mr. and Mrs. Iverson are thus entitled to have their cases tried on their merits. A certain extension of the rule which we have applied today may be necessary under some circumstances. The following excerpt from Hundley v. St. Francis Hospital, 161 Cal. App. 2d 800, 327 P.2d 131, 80 A.L.R.2d 360 (1958), may indicate the direction in which it may be necessary to extend the rule, dependent upon the facts: We next turn our attention to the specifications of error assigned by the Iversons. The first three specifications of error assert that the trial court erred in denying the Iversons' motions that they be permitted to examine Drs. Shook, Heilman, and Story as hostile or adverse witnesses. The Iversons named Dr. Lancaster and the Fargo Clinic as parties defendant in their respective actions. In their complaints they asserted that the Fargo Clinic was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of North Dakota, that in the month of July 1957 and prior thereto the corporation held itself out to the plaintiffs and the public in general as a place where persons could obtain medical services in the care and treatment of diseases and injuries to the human body, and that it had specialists in the field of medical practice for such services. During the trial the Iversons called Mr. C. Warner Litten for cross-examination. He testified that he was secretary-treasurer of the Fargo Clinic, a corporation, and manager of the Fargo Clinic, a partnership. He said the corporation owned the building and the property around it, operated a pharmacy, and leased the building to the partnership, which operated the medical functions within the building itself. It appears then that neither the employees of the partnership nor its members, other than Dr. Lancaster, were parties defendant. The pertinent rule reads: Dr. Shook was asked the following questions to establish a basis for examining him as a hostile witness: The questions asked Dr. Charles Heilman as a basis for examining him as a hostile witness elicited his name, that he was a radiologist, that he had practiced at the Fargo Clinic and St. Luke's Hospital since April 1942, and that he knew Dr. Lancaster personally. After this much of his testimony counsel for the Iversons moved to be allowed to examine him as a hostile witness, and the court denied the motion. Dr. Robert Story's testimony in response to the questions asked him as a basis for examining him as an adverse witness was that he had been a physician since 1947; that he had practiced at the Fargo Clinic for eleven years and had been in the service for three years; that he knew Dr. Lancaster well; that he worked with Dr. Lancaster as a colleague in the same department; that he was a partner; that Dr. Lancaster had requested a consultation with him in Mrs. Iverson's case and he had accordingly examined her, although he did not do a complete examination; that he thought that examination took place on June 27, 1962; and that he believed he had made a written report or notation of that examination. On the basis of that testimony the court denied the motion to examine him as an adverse witness. *514 Although the record does not disclose that the Iversons so argued in trial court, on appeal they seem to argue that we must distinguish between what is permissible under the first sentence and what is permissible under the second sentence of rule 43(b). They contend that they should have been permitted under the first sentence to ask leading questions of the doctors because they were associated or aligned with Dr. Lancaster either as partners or employees at the time of diagnosis and treatment of Mrs. Iverson, or that they should have been permitted under the second sentence to interrogate the doctors by leading questions and contradict and impeach them as adverse parties although they were not made defendants. Recent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit seem to support the Iversons in their contention that a party may be an adverse party although he is not made a party defendant. In Degelos v. Fidelity &amp; Cas. Co., 313 F.2d 809 (5th Cir. 1963), the court said: In Degelos the court permitted the plaintiff, in a suit nominally brought against a liability insurer under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute to call the assured as an adverse witness under F.R.Civ.P. 43(b). We believe, however, that the assured stood in a much different relationship to the plaintiff in that case than the doctors did to the Iversons in the instant appeals. We quote Degelos: We think it should be especially noted that the court in Degelos pointed out that the plaintiffs' recovery depended altogether on the conduct of the driver, who was sought to be called for cross-examination as an adverse witness. In the instant appeals the Iversons' recovery was not dependent on the conduct of the three doctors whom they sought to cross-examine but on the conduct of Dr. Lancaster. In any case, no offer of proof was made to attempt to show that the Iversons' recovery was dependent upon the conduct of the three doctors. In other words, no effort was made to show that they were the tort-feasors. In a still more recent decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court said: Here again we note that the court's reason for permitting the witness to be called as an adverse party was that the witness's conduct gave rise to the cause of action, which, as we have previously pointed out, was not the case in the instant appeals. We accordingly hold that the Iversons were not entitled to examine the three doctors as adverse parties. We must pursue case law further to determine whether they should have been permitted to call the doctors as hostile witnesses under the first sentence of rule 43(b). The most recent case we have been able to find on this subject is Journeymen Plasterers' Local 5 v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 539 (7th Cir. 1965). In that case the court said: In Journeymen Plasterers' the court found that the circumstances justified a finding of sufficient surprise to permit impeachment of the witness by the use of his extrajudicial statement. The court accordingly found that the record failed to show an abuse of discretion in permitting impeachment of the witness. In an earlier decision the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had this to say: Can we say that there was such a showing of clear alignment of interest between the three doctors and Dr. Lancaster or such antagonism directed toward the Iversons, weighed by traditional concepts of prejudice, that we must find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to permit the Iversons to examine the doctors as hostile witnesses? We think not. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's denial of the motions to permit the Iversons to examine the doctors as hostile witnesses. *517 The third issue we are confronted with is set forth in the Iversons' brief as follows: The writer of 60 A.L.R.2d 77 summarizes the subject as follows: The annotator has categorized North Dakota as having applied the lines of authority numbered (1), (2), and (4). The decision cited by the annotator as placing North Dakota among those states with the most liberal policy in permitting the use of treatises is that of Kersten v. Great Northern Railway, 28 N.D. 3, 147 N.W. 787 (1914). In Kersten this court said: With the trend in the courts toward permitting a greater use of treatises in the examination of expert witnesses and the logic which supports such a trend, we believe it is well that we clarify this court's position. We conclude that the approach used by the courts which have followed the fourth line of authority is best. We therefore find that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the Iversons in their cross-examination of Dr. Lancaster to use a treatise written by an authority whom the doctor recognized but had not read or followed in his medical practice. It was not error, however, for the trial court to refuse to permit the Iversons to use an unidentified article from the Journal of the American Medical Association in cross-examination of Dr. Lancaster, when the author was not established as an authority nor recognized by the doctor as an authority, even though the doctor testified that in his practice he generally relied on the Journal. It was not error for the trial court to refuse to permit the Iversons to use an identified article from the Journal of the American Medical Association in cross-examination of Dr. Lancaster in the above situation. In view of our disposition of other specifications of error in the Iversons' favor, we find it unnecessary to consider their specifications of error Nos. 7 and 9, which deal with the court's alleged prejudicial error in the denial of a motion to strike as not responsive a certain answer of Dr. Lancaster on cross-examination and the court's comments on the evidence. The fourth issue is that the court erred in sustaining an objection to the plaintiffs' cross-examination of Dr. Lancaster directed toward establishing the standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by doctors in the community. The record pertinent to this issue reads: As the trial court sustained the objection to that question on the basis of Hunder v. Rindlaub, 61 N.D. 389, 237 N.W. 915 (1931), and it is upon this opinion that Dr. Lancaster contends the objection should be sustained on appeal, we set forth the pertinent part of that opinion: As the ruling in Hunder was based on C.L.1913, § 7870, which has now been superseded by N.D.R.Civ.P. 43(b), let us compare the rule with the statute: In comparing the rule with the statute we find interesting what the Maryland Court of Appeals in a 1961 decision said, in comparing their rule with our statute and the statutes of three other states which followed the Hunder rule: Our rule 43(b) is similar in language to the Maryland statute. In adopting the reasoning of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Lawless v. Calaway, 24 Cal. 2d 81, 147 P.2d 604 (1944), the Maryland court said: The reasoning of the California court adopted by the Maryland court is: In light of the evolution that has taken place in procedures since the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the United States Supreme Court and the adoption by the various state courts of rules of civil procedure patterned on the federal rules, we think it pertinent to review some other decisions of state courts that have considered this question. In a recent decision the New York Court of Appeals said: In a recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court, after listing the decisions which do not permit a party to elicit expert testimony from his opponent, the court commented: In a decision rendered only last year by the Michigan Court of Appeals that court reviewed the change that has taken place in the law relating to this issue: Behind the trend away from the rule announced in Hunder is the reasoning of Wigmore: As our analysis of the trend of the law may have indicated, we are now convinced that it is timely and proper, in light of the adoption of N.D.R.Civ.P. 43(b) that our decision in Hunder v. Rindlaub be overruled. We accordingly hold that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the Iversons to cross-examine Dr. Lancaster as an expert. Because of this error and the other errors we have found to have been committed by the trial court and because they precipitated all other errors specified, we find it unnecessary to consider the additional specifications of error filed by the Iversons. The errors were prejudicial, and we hereby order that the judgments appealed from be reversed. The cases are therefore remanded for new trial. TEIGEN, C.J., and KNUDSON, PAULSON and STRUTZ, JJ., concur.