Opinion ID: 1598823
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: time of discovery

Text: Summary judgment is a procedural device which provides a prompt expeditious method for disposing of a controversy without a trial if there are no questions as to material facts, or inferences which may be drawn from undisputed facts, or when the only question to be resolved is a question of law. E.g., Adams v. Canterra Petroleum, Inc., 439 N.W.2d 540, 542 (N.D.1989). The initial burden of showing that there are no disputes as to material facts or inferences falls upon the moving party. E.g., Wheeler v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc., 451 N.W.2d 133, 136 (N.D.1990). While the moving party bears the initial burden of showing that no dispute as to material facts or inferences exist, the nonmoving party has a subsequent duty to respond to the motion for summary judgment. E.g., United Electric Service & Supply, Inc. v. Powers, 464 N.W.2d 818 (N.D.1991); Eckmann v. Northwestern Federal Savings & Loan Association, 436 N.W.2d 258, 260 (N.D.1989). On appeal, we will review the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment was granted. Wheeler, 451 N.W.2d at 136; Adams, 439 N.W.2d at 542; Thiele v. Lindquist & Vennum, 404 N.W.2d 52, 53-54 (N.D.1987). Baron asserts that a material question of fact exists concerning the determination of when the statute of limitations began to run. The relevant part of the statute of limitations governing this action reads: 4. Any action to recover damages based on injury allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestos composed of chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthrophyllite, actinolite, or any combination thereof, shall be commenced within three years after the injured person has been informed of discovery of the injury by competent medical authority and that such injury was caused by exposure to asbestos as described herein, or within three years after the discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier. Section 28-01.1-02(4), N.D.C.C. Section 28-01.1-02(4) thus provides for the application of the discovery rule in cases concerning injuries stemming from asbestos exposure. In discussing but not applying this rule in a products liability case, we have said: The limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury. Erickson v. Scotsman, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 535, 538 (N.D. 1990) (quoting 4 American Law of Products Liability 3d, Statutes of Limitation § 47:21 (1987)). Accord 2 A Framer & Friedman, Products Liability §§ 12.02[3], 12.04[4] (1988). We have applied the discovery rule in cases involving medical and legal malpractice. See Wheeler, 451 N.W.2d at 137 (applying the discovery rule to a medical malpractice case); Wall v. Lewis, 393 N.W.2d 758, 761-62 (N.D.1986) (applying the discovery rule to a legal malpractice case). We have also noted the potential use of the discovery rule in cases which involve asbestos. See generally Erickson, 456 N.W.2d at 538-39. Baron contends that the determination of when he was either informed by competent medical authority of his injuries, or discovered facts which would lead to such a discovery, is a question of fact which prevents the application of summary judgment. We have applied the objective standard to the knowledge requirement of the discovery rule. Wheeler, 451 N.W.2d at 137; Wall, 393 N.W.2d at 761. In Wall, we said: Thus, the focus is upon whether the plaintiff has been apprised of facts which would place a reasonable person on notice that a potential claim exists. It is not necessary that the plaintiff be subjectively convinced that he has been injured and that the injury was caused by the defendant's negligence. 393 N.W.2d at 761. Ordinarily, the plaintiff's knowledge is a question of fact which prevents the application of summary judgment. E.g., Wheeler, 451 N.W.2d at 137. However, the issue becomes one of law if the evidence is such that reasonable minds could draw but one conclusion. Id. (citing Belgarde v. Rosenau, 388 N.W.2d 129, 130 (N.D.1986)). In Wall, we said: `The issue of discovery can become an issue of law where the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment establish that the plaintiff had a general awareness of misconduct by the attorney which pre-existed the statutory period.' 393 N.W.2d at 762 (quoting R. Mallen and V. Levit, Legal Malpractice § 394 (2d ed. 1981)). Baron initiated this action in September of 1987. [4] The defendants had the initial burden of establishing that Baron was either informed of discovery of the injury by competent medical authority and that such injury was caused by exposure to asbestos, or that he discovered facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, prior to September of 1984. [5] The following facts could support a conclusion that Baron had the statutorily required knowledge of his injury, or that he had facts which should reasonably have led to the discovery of his injury, prior to September of 1984: 1) Baron began to have trouble breathing in 1970; 2) During the 1970's, Baron became aware of the potential dangers associated with asbestos; 3) In the late 1970's, Baron began to wear a protective mask on a partial basis; 4) In 1982, Baron attended a meeting concerning asbestos issues at the law office of Shelly Lashkowitz; 5) Following the meeting with Lashkowitz, x-rays of Baron's chest were sent to Dr. Selikoff at the Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York; 6) Baron received a report from Dr. Selikoff, dated April 16, 1982, which indicated that the x-rays revealed appearances are consistent with asbestosis; and, 7) On July 16, 1982, Baron initiated a claim with the Worker's Compensation Bureau alleging he had contracted asbestosis in his lungs as the result of working with asbestos, and that his first treating physician was Dr. Selikoff. This evidence supports a conclusion that the defendants met the initial burden of showing that Baron was aware of facts which reasonably should have led him to the discovery of his injury no later than July 16, 1982. As summary judgment of dismissal was granted, we must view that evidence in light of all the evidence. Baron asserts that the following facts create genuine issues of material facts, or issues of inferences to be drawn, that make summary judgment in this case improper: 1) Baron was never personally examined by Dr. Selikoff; 2) On October 11, 1984, Dr. March stated, in his discharge report, Baron had a history of asbestos exposure and has known pleural plaques, but no evidence of pulmonary asbestosis.; 3) On November 2, 1984, Dr. Stoy indicated that Baron had a history of asbestos exposure with positive plaques on the diaphragms, but later in the same report said that a pulmonary function test had been performed that did not disclose a pulmonary disease which could be attributable to his asbestos [sic]; 4) On December 28, 1984, Baron's worker's compensation claim was denied; and 5) An affidavit of Baron says that his physicians said he did not have asbestosis. He relies especially upon Barsness v. General Diesel & Equipment, 383 N.W.2d 840, 844 (N.D.1986), where we said: Where there exists the `slightest doubt' as to a factual dispute or `genuine issue of fact,' summary judgment should be denied in a negligence action. [Citation omitted.] In the instant case we can look directly at evidence which suggests the extent of Baron's knowledge at the time of the filing of the worker's compensation claim; i.e., the claim itself. However, we should not look only at the information available to him at that time, but should also consider the information which became available to him more directly relating to his condition between the filing of the claim and the denial of the claim. Other courts have addressed statute of limitations problems involving the prior submission of a claim for worker's compensation benefits. See Ackler v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 380 Pa.Super. 183, 551 A.2d 291 (1988); Chandler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 352 Pa.Super. 326, 507 A.2d 1253 (1986); Price v. Johns-Manville Corp., 336 Pa.Super. 133, 485 A.2d 466 (1984); Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp., 304 Pa.Super. 280, 450 A.2d 681 (1982); Uram v. ABEX Corp., 266 Cal.Rptr. 695, 217 Cal.App.3d 1425 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.1990); Allender v. AKRO Corporation, 1985 WL 9188 (Ohio App.). The above courts affirmed the lower courts' decisions to grant summary judgment of dismissal of the claims. In each of the above cases except Uram, the plaintiff's worker's compensation claim had been granted. In Uram, although the chief of claims for the compensation program agreed that Uram had sustained pulmonary injury consistent with exposure to asbestos in the performance of duty, he concluded that there was no evidence of disability and, accordingly, the federal worker's compensation claim was denied. 217 Cal.App.3d at 1429, 1430, 266 Cal.Rptr. 695. Essentially, the worker's compensation award did not change what the claimants in the above cases knew or perceived they knew. This case differs from all of the above cases except Uram in that the worker's compensation claim was denied in this case and allowed in the other cases, and in that it was denied on grounds which may have caused Baron to doubt that he had asbestosis so as to discourage him from suing the defendants. Compounding Baron's possible confusion resulting from the denial of the worker's compensation claim are the opinions of Dr. Stoy and Dr. March, rendered prior to the denial of the worker's compensation claim, which also could have caused him to question whether or not he actually suffered from asbestosis. The crucial question in the instant case, however, is whether or not Baron, prior to September of 1984, was informed of discovery of the injury by competent medical authority and that such injury was caused by exposure to asbestos, or discovered facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery.  § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C. (emphasis added). Baron filed a worker's compensation claim on July 16, 1982, that specifically stated that he had been injured by asbestos. This indicates only Baron's knowledge on that date. In Uram, the California Court of Appeals, when confronted with similar contentions, said: He also stresses that his compensation claim was denied in 1982. However, the facts which led him to file that claim were not changed by the Labor Department's determination. Nor does the record reflect that after the denial of his claim Uram learned of any new facts regarding his condition that led him to bring his action in 1987. As in Jolly, [Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1112, 751 P.2d 923 [245 Cal.Rptr. 658] (1988) ] it is his discovery of facts, not their legal significance to the Labor Department, that matters here. At the very least, Uram should have known of his asbestos-related disability long before he filed this lawsuit. 217 Cal.App. at 1429, 1430, 266 Cal.Rptr. 695 (emphasis added). In the instant case, as distinguished from the facts in Uram, Baron received, in addition to a denial of his claim, specific information from doctors who personally examined him that: He has a history of asbestos exposure and has known pleural plaques but no evidence of pulmonary asbestosis ; and,  His asbestos [sic] is most likely asymptomatic an [sic] is strictly and [sic] exposure without any clinical significance. [Emphasis added.] Under the facts as they evolved in conjunction with his claim we cannot say that the facts are such that reasonable minds could draw but one conclusion and, accordingly, summary judgment of dismissal was not proper. Wheeler, 451 N.W.2d at 137. We believe our opinion is also supported by a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court which stated the following under similar factual circumstances: In the instant case, Nolan knew he had lung problems in 1957, and he knew he had pulmonary fibrosis in 1965. It was not until May 15, 1973, that he was told by a doctor that he had asbestosis and that his condition was caused by exposure to asbestos materials at work. The evidence is conflicting as to whether or when Nolan would have had sufficient information to reach such a conclusion earlier. The resolution of this question is not the province of this court. It is a question of fact, and in this case, a seriously disputed one. Accordingly, summary judgment, which requires that no genuine issues of material fact exist, is not an appropriate remedy here. Therefore, for the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. [Citation omitted.] Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill.2d 161, 52 Ill.Dec. 1, 6, 421 N.E.2d 864, 869 (1981). It is interesting to note what the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has said about this issue under Minnesota law and who should determine this issue: As in silicosis cases, see Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 93 L.Ed. 1282 (1949), there is rarely a magic moment when one exposed to asbestos can be said to have contracted asbestosis; the exposure is more in the nature of a continuing tort. It is when the disease manifests itself in a way which supplies some evidence of causal relationship to the manufactured product that the public interest in limiting the time for asserting a claim attaches and the statute of limitations will begin to run. The time at which Karjala's impairment manifested itself was, of course, for the jury to determine. [Emphasis added.] Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation, 523 F.2d 155, 160 (8th Cir.1975). As summary judgment of dismissal was improper, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a determination of this issue by the jury. Notwithstanding that we have so decided we must now determine whether or not we should consider and decide the other issues raised on appeal. We receive guidance in this task from our cases in which we have remanded the cases for new trials. In some of those cases we have said: Because some of the remaining issues raised on appeal may arise during the new trial, we will comment on those issues in the interest of judicial economy. Keyes v. Amundson, 391 N.W.2d 602, 607 (N.D. 1986). See Kaufman v. Meditec, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 297 (N.D.1984). Pursuing that philosophy in this case, we will now apprise the other issues raised in this case.