Opinion ID: 1974114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: applying the three year statute of limitations, when did the cause of action for personal injury accrue?

Text: [5] The further assertion is made that if the three year statute of limitations applies, the cause of action did not accrue until Marie Koschnik was injured. Both the act of negligence and that fact of resultant injury must take place before a cause of action founded in negligence can be said to have occurred. Holifield v. Setco Industries, Inc., 42 Wis.2d 750, 756, 168 N.W.2d 177 (1969). The injury did not occur, according to the plaintiff, until the settlement was reached based on the erroneous information supplied by Dr. Smejkal. Drawing an analogy from other types of professional malpractice cases, it is asserted that this action did not accrue until the date that the damages claimed have become fixed or established. [6] Although it is potentially possible that the act of negligence and the corresponding injury in medical malpractice cases may involve different dates, we do not believe the case at bar involves such a situation. [6] We conclude that under our established construction of sec. 893.205, Stats., in medical malpractice cases, the cause of action accrued at the time of the misdiagnosis. The injury to Marie Koschnik became fixed on that date. See, Peterson v. Roloff, 57 Wis.2d 1, 4, 203 N.W.2d 699 (1973); Reistad v. Manz, 11 Wis.2d 155, 105 N.W.2d 324 (1960); McCluskey v. Thranow, 31 Wis.2d 245, 142 N.W. 2d 787 (1966); Volk v. McCormick, 41 Wis.2d 654, 165 N.W.2d 185 (1969), and Olson v. St. Croix Valley Memorial Hospital, 55 Wis.2d 628, 201 N.W.2d 63 (1972). In this regard we note that in Rod v. Farrell, 96 Wis.2d 349, 291 N.W.2d 568 (1980), the majority of this Court [7] has declined to adopt the discovery rule in medical malpractice cases holding that the question whether to change the existing construction of the statute of limitations is properly one for the legislature.