Opinion ID: 2194861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stella Harrington

Text: [¶ 15] Viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Harrington, the following facts are undisputed. On January 14, 1987, Vitek implants were placed in Harrington by an OSA surgeon. After complaining of pain in her jaw, Harrington had her implants removed on July 30, 1987. Harrington filed her notice of claim on May 7, 1995. [¶ 16] Unlike the three other plaintiffs, Harrington's claim is governed by the six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment because, earlier in this litigation, she presented evidence that OSA surgeons had engaged in conduct that a fact finder might conclude amounted to fraudulent concealment. Brawn I, 2003 ME 11, ¶ 26, 819 A.2d at 1026-27. However, as we held in Brawn II, OSA's duty to warn Harrington of the risks of leaving the implants in place expired upon removal of the implants. Because her notice of claim was not filed within six years of the removal of her implants, the court correctly found that Harrington's claim was untimely. The entry is: Judgments affirmed.