Opinion ID: 1161746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Direct Negligence of the Hospital

Text: In her direct negligence claim against the hospital, appellant contends that the hospital failed to engage in adequate peer review procedures. Appellant has not explained how the continuous treatment rule would apply to this particular claim, and we do not think it is applicable. We cannot agree, however, with the hospital's assertion that the statute began to run when appellant was discharged. As far as we can tell from the record, the hospital's alleged act, error or omission  failure to ensure adequate supervision and review of the case  had not even occurred at that point. Moreover, we cannot discern the time when appellant discovered the hospital's alleged failure to supervise or review her treatment. Appellant amended her complaint to include that claim on February 19, 1986, nearly four years after her discharge from the hospital and over a year after she filed her initial complaint. While certainly not dispositive of the question, this fact at least suggests that the discovery provisions of the statute of limitations might be of some assistance to appellant. It appears that these factual issues concerning the statute of limitations need further development in the trial court. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the statute of limitations had run on the direct negligence claim against the hospital.