Opinion ID: 3012734
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Doctrine of Fraudulent Concealment

Text: Parkill argues that her claim should not be barred by the statute of limitations because Dr. Gordon’s representations constitute fraudulent concealment under Pennsylvania law. “Where, ‘through fraud or concealment, the defendant causes the plaintiff to relax his vigilance or deviate from his right of inquiry,’ the defendant is estopped from invoking the bar of the statute of limitations.” Molineux v. Reed, 532 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1987) (quoting Schaffer v. Larzelere, 189 A.2d 267, 269 (Pa. 1963)); Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co., 204 A.2d 473, 475 (Pa. 1964). However, “[m]ere mistake, misunderstanding or lack of knowledge is insufficient however, and the burden of proving such fraud or concealment, by evidence which is clear, precise and convincing, is upon the asserting party.” Id. at 794 (citation omitted). The burden of proving fraudulent concealment rested solely on Parkhill. The district court concluded that Parkhill did not establish Dr. Gordon’s fraudulent concealment, because the evidence only showed that “Dr. Gordon simply expressed his medical opinion that it was not feasible to reconstruct her ear.” (App. 10a.) Moreover, the trial court found that Parkhill was “not discouraged from seeking further advice.” Id. On appeal, Parkhill argues that the trial court’s factual finding that she was not 7 discouraged from seeking further advice was clear error.6 Parkhill testified that Dr. Gordon never told her not to seek out a second opinion. However, she presented no evidence that Dr. Gordon attempted to relax her diligence or suggest that she not seek further medical treatment for her left ear. The only evidence Parkhill puts forth that tends to show she was discouraged from seeking further advice are Dr. Gordon’s reports and representations that the reconstruction of the ear was not feasible. Parkhill presented nothing to allow the district court to conclude that Gordon discouraged her from receiving a second opinion. Therefore, the court’s factual finding is consistent with the record, and its conclusion does not constitute clear error.