Opinion ID: 534798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: did the district court err in granting partial summary

Text: JUDGMENT FOR MR. CIPOLLONE WITH RESPECT TO THE 213 DEFENDANTS' STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE? 214 New Jersey has a two year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, see N.J.S.A. Sec. 2A:14-2, and has adopted the discovery rule. Under this doctrine, a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party  'learns, or reasonably should learn, the existence of that state of facts which may equate in law with a cause of action.'  Vispisiano v. Ashland Chemical Co., 107 N.J. 416, 426, 527 A.2d 66, 71 (1987) (per curiam) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Stated differently, a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party  'discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered[,] that he may have a basis for an actionable claim.'  Id. at 419, 527 A.2d at 67 (citation omitted). 215 Mrs. Cipollone's lawsuit was filed on August 1, 1983. The district court granted (partial) summary judgment against the defendants on their statute of limitations defense, holding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Mrs. Cipollone discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts giving rise to her claims prior to August 1, 1981. Liggett contends that the evidence in the record was sufficient to support a jury finding that Mrs. Cipollone discovered or should have discovered the facts giving rise to her claim before August 1, 1981. 216 Summary judgment should be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Our review is de novo. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 217 The relevant facts are as follows. Mrs. Cipollone went to Dr. Alfred Lowy on July 23, 1981 for her regular medical checkup and x-ray. At that time, Dr. Lowy told her that he had discovered a spot on her lung. Mrs. Cipollone believed that this spot could be cancer caused by her smoking. She testified: 218 Q: When Dr. Lowy told you you had a spot on your lung, you got scared? A: Yes. 219 Q: You got scared because you knew what the significance of that could be, didn't you? A: Yes. 220 Q: You were afraid that it could mean lung cancer? A: That's right. 221 Q: You knew that cigarette smoking had been connected with cancer as you told us? A: Yes. 222 Q: So you were afraid right then and there that you could have lung cancer from cigarette smoking, isn't that a fact? A: Right. 223 There is also ample evidence in the record from which the jury could conclude that Mrs. Cipollone knew that lung cancer was often caused by smoking. 224 Dr. Lowy did not tell Mrs. Cipollone that she might have lung cancer, but advised Mrs. Cipollone to see a lung specialist immediately. He recommended Dr. Seriff, whom Mrs. Cipollone went to see the next day. Dr. Seriff inquired about Mrs. Cipollone's smoking history and advised her, as he advises all of his patients, to stop smoking. Although Dr. Seriff formulated five differential diagnoses of her condition, one of which was primary lung cancer, 48 [b]ased on the appearance of Mrs. Cipollone's x-rays, [he] initially believed she had a pneumonia or viral infection and treated her with antibiotic medications. Dr. Seriff did not tell her that there was a possibility that she had lung cancer, but upon leaving Dr. Seriff's office, Mrs. Cipollone quit smoking for the first time in twenty-four years. 225 Dr. Seriff saw Mrs. Cipollone for the second time on July 30, 1981. He later affirmed that [t]here was no definite change in her x-ray as a result of the antibiotic medication, therefore I began to feel it was less likely that she had a slowly resolving pneumonia causing the shadow. He still did not inform her that she might have cancer; he told her that his impression was that she had a viral infection. 226 At this point, Mrs. Cipollone certainly did not know that she had lung cancer. However, by this time, she knew that she had a spot on her lung and believed that the spot could be cancer caused by smoking. Indeed, she must have feared that she might get lung cancer from smoking, having made repeated novenas to St. Jude over the years in the hopes of avoiding it. She could have asked Dr. Seriff whether she might have cancer. Thus, although we think that the question is close, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Mrs. Cipollone  'by the exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered'  that she  'may have [had] a basis for an actionable claim'  prior to July 30, 1981. 49 Vispisiano, 107 N.J. at 419, 527 A.2d at 67. 50 227 Mr. Cipollone argues, in essence, that if Dr. Seriff did not know with reasonable medical certainty by August 1, 1981 that Mrs. Cipollone had lung cancer from smoking, then it would be unreasonable to expect Mrs. Cipollone to know this information. The problem with this argument is that it misstates the applicable legal test. The statute of limitations did not start running when Mrs. Cipollone knew that she had cancer from smoking; it started to run when she, by exercising reasonable diligence, should have known that she might have had cancer from smoking. Accordingly the issue will have to be tried. 228 We do not, of course, hold that Mr. Cipollone's claims are barred by the two year statute of limitations. We hold only that a jury could conclude that they are and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate on this issue. 229