Opinion ID: 1539955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Statute Of Limitations When The Injury Occurred

Text: Section 6856 of the Medical Negligence Act requires an action for medical negligence to be filed within two years from the date upon which [the] injury occurred. [29] In Dunn v. St. Francis Hospital and again in Meekins v. Barnes , this Court held that for the purpose of a medical malpractice claim based on a single act of medical negligence, the injury occurred on the date when the wrongful act or omission occurred. [30] In Meekins, the plaintiff brought a claim for medical negligence in which she alleged that the defendants were medically negligent when they examined her mammogram and failed to diagnose her cancer in December 1994. [31] The plaintiff claimed that she was not injured, however, until the defendants failed to call her back for a follow-up mammogram six months later in June 1995. [32] This Court concluded that the plaintiff's injury occurred when the medically negligent act occurred in December 1994. [33] In December 1994, the defendant doctor examined the plaintiff's mammogram, reported, allegedly negligently and inaccurately, that there were no changes from her prior mammograms and no signs of cancer, and recommended that she return the following year for her next mammogram. [34] Therefore, the plaintiff's cause of action for medical negligence began when the injury occurred on the date of the alleged misdiagnosis in December 1994. [35] This Court explained in Meekins that the fact that the plaintiff did not know that she had a potential claim until her next annual mammogram in December 1995 did not toll the beginning of the two-year limitations period. [36] We explained that [t]here was no cause of action that actually arose in June 1995 because no affirmative happening or event of medical negligence occurred at that time. [37] In Meekins, we recognized that [i]t may seem harsh that a statute of limitations begins to run on a misdiagnosis from the date of that misdiagnosis when the patient is unaware of the allegedly negligent error causing the injury, but we also noted that the General Assembly designed the Medical Malpractice statute to ameliorate the harshness of the statute of limitations by providing an additional year to bring a suit in cases where the patient did not have knowledge of the claim until after the two-year period expired. [38] In Meekins, the plaintiff became aware of the potential misdiagnosis one year later, during her next annual mammogram in December 1995. Therefore, she became aware of the potential claim for medical negligence within the two-year limitations period and had two years from the date on which the injury occurred in December 1994 to bring her claim. According to this Court's holding in Meekins, Meyer's complaint is time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical negligence claims. Meyer's injury occurred on the date of the allegedly negligent act, that is, the defendants' failure to diagnose her cancer on March 8, 2005. Meyer filed her complaint on October 24, 2007, after the expiration of the limitations period. Meyer's argument that she did not suffer an injury until her cancer metastasized on November 1, 2005, fails under Meekins. Just as this Court rejected the argument that the plaintiff in Meekins was injured when the defendants failed to call her back for a six-month follow-up mammogram in June 1995 after the alleged misdiagnosis in December 1994, we must also reject Meyer's argument that she was injured when the cancer metastasized in November 2005 after the alleged misdiagnosis in March 2005. Meyer alleged in her complaint that the defendants committed medical negligence on March 8, 2005, when they failed to diagnose cancer in her breast from her mammogram. Meyer filed her complaint on October 24, 2007, more than two years after the allegedly negligent act occurred. Therefore, her claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims. Meyer's argument was based on the affidavit of her expert witness, who stated that in his opinion there was no injury until the cancer metastasized on November 1, 2005. This Court has already held in Dunn and Meekins that the phrase injury occurred in section 6856, governing the statute of limitations for medical negligence claims, refers to the date when the wrongful act or omission occurred. [39] The Superior Court, in accepting Meyer's argument, appears to have confused manifestation of injury with this Court's definition of injury. Meyer's expert stated in his affidavit that Meyer's injury occurred when her cancer spread from a local to regional disease on November 1, 2005, and that he had no reasonable grounds to believe that allegedly negligent misdiagnosis on March 8, 2005, caused a medically provable injury until the cancer spread in November 2005. The defendants correctly assert, however, that the allegedly negligent medical error was the failure to discover cancer during the March 8, 2005, exam, which caused a delay in treatment. The injury was the delay in treatment. That injury occurred on the date that the cancer could have been diagnosed but was not. Meyer claimed that the defendants could have diagnosed her cancer on March 8, 2005, but failed to do so. March 8, 2005, is the date on which Meyer's injury occurred. The metastasis of the cancer on November 1, 2005, was a manifestation of the damage caused by the injury, i.e., the delay in treatment caused by the failure to diagnose the cancer earlier on March 8, 2005.