Opinion ID: 1242865
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When discovery occurs

Text: ¶ 32 When discovery occurs and a cause of action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury. Gust, 182 Ariz. at 591, 898 P.2d at 969 (trial judge correct to let jury decide when discovery occurred). A plaintiff need not know all the facts underlying a cause of action to trigger accrual. Richards v. Powercraft Homes, Inc., 139 Ariz. 264, 266, 678 P.2d 449, 451 (App.1983), vacated in part, 139 Ariz. 242, 678 P.2d 427 (1984). But the plaintiff must at least possess a minimum requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury. See, e.g., Lawhon v. L.B.J. Institutional Supply, Inc., 159 Ariz. 179, 183, 765 P.2d 1003, 1007 (App. 1988) (cause of action accrues when plaintiff discovers injury is attributable to particular person's conduct; plaintiff must know both the what and who elements). In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's father argued that Plaintiff possessed sufficient knowledge of facts for her cause of action to accrue under the discovery rule when she had her first flashback of abuse, pointing to statements that on July 10, 1989, Plaintiff remembered she had been molested by her father, she began therapy, and she was aware that incidents of abuse caused some injury. Had the argument gone unanswered or unexplained, we would agree that summary judgment was warranted. ¶ 33 Upon a moving party's prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the opposing party bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence that an issue of fact does exist. W.J. Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 112 Ariz. 285, 286, 541 P.2d 385, 386 (1975). In opposition to the father's motion, Plaintiff produced such evidence, offering therapist's affidavits and her own statements maintaining she could not accept the truth of the recovered memories, did not believe them, and was in denial that the abuse occurred. There was uncontradicted evidence Plaintiff spent the 1989 Christmas holidays with her parents and never mentioned her flashbacks of abuse. This evidence, of course, raises conflicting inferencesshe was in denial and so spent the holidays with her parents, or she remembered but resolved to put the matter behind her. In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we are compelled by law to accept the first interpretation. Moreover, Plaintiff asserted she did not disclose her memories of abuse to anyone other than her therapist until June 1990, thus supporting the concept of denial or inability to remember while actually trying to remember what had happened. A therapist's affidavit averred that Plaintiff was very committed to her recovery, she was hospitalized and had to forego employment due to her emotional state, and she did not recall the vast majority of incidents of abuse until after May 1990. ¶ 34 On motion for summary judgment, reasonable inferences are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Webster v. Culbertson, 158 Ariz. 159, 160, 761 P.2d 1063, 1064 (1988). Applying this rule, the trial judge should have determined that an issue of fact existed whether Plaintiff knew or had discovered the facts underlying her claim on July 10, 1989. In the present posture of the case, a jury could infer that Plaintiff: did not believe the accuracy of her flashbacks until some time in 1990; did not recover a sufficient quantum of memories to establish a claim until the majority of her memories surfaced after May 1990; and was diligent in seeking the facts underlying her claim but, given her mental state, the majority of facts were undiscoverable until after May 1990. The affidavits and supporting documents as a whole, then, raised genuine issues of material fact whether Plaintiff discovered the facts underlying her claim on July 10, 1989, or by June 1990, when she finally traveled to her parents' home and confronted them, or some time in between. The latter date, of course, would place the filing of this action within the two-year limitations period. ¶ 35 The court of appeals reasoned that because Plaintiff realized on July 10, 1989 she had been sexually abused by her father and began to discuss the abuse six months thereafter, Plaintiff knew or with reasonable diligence should have known that her father harmed her. The intricate mechanics of recalling repressed memories, however, do not permit so easy an analysis. As noted, victims of sexual abuse may experience recall of repressed memories in a piecemeal fashion and over long periods of time. Taken separately, these memory fragments may not provide a comprehensible depiction of any past incident. Moreover, for some time a victim may deny that the incidents actually took place, as Plaintiff did. The court of appeals essentially charged Plaintiff with a duty to file a complaint based on information she subjectively believed to be false or unbelievable at the time. Many if not most people would tend to reject the validity of memories of such heinous events. The discovery rule does not require a person to file a complaint based on knowledge the person believes is false. ¶ 36 The jury must determine at what point Plaintiff's knowledge, understanding, and acceptance in the aggregate provided sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. We take as instructive the Utah Supreme Court's remand instructions in Olsen v. Hooley, 865 P.2d 1345 (Utah 1993). After determining the discovery rule applied in cases involving repressed memory the court stated: If the fact finder finds for [plaintiff] on [this] issue, it must then ascertain at what point [she] recalled the abuse. It is at that point the limitations period began to run. Id. at 1350; see also Osland v. Osland, 442 N.W.2d 907, 909 (N.D.1989); Hammer v. Hammer, 142 Wis.2d 257, 418 N.W.2d 23, 27 (Wis.App.1987). Plaintiff here presented evidence that she did not recall the vast majority of incidents of abuse until well after May 1990. Thus there was a significant gap in the what component of her knowledge. On this record it is not clear when Plaintiff remembered what; thus determining the time when the quantum of knowledge was sufficient is a task reserved exclusively to the jury.