Opinion ID: 681592
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mrs. Lareau's Claims

Text: 21 Mrs. Lareau argues that the earliest date on which her causes of action accrued was June 16, 1989, the day on which she watched the 20/20 program on Thorotrast. Mrs. Lareau argues that before watching 20/20, she did not know what Thorotrast was or that it was harming her; nor did she know that she had a Thorotrast granuloma in her brain. Mrs. Lareau also argues that she did not suffer emotional distress before watching 20/20. Because she instituted this action approximately one year after watching 20/20, Mrs. Lareau argues that her claims are well within the applicable limitations periods. We do not agree. 22 Following careful review of the record, we hold as a matter of law that Mrs. Lareau had sufficient notice to have discovered her claims upon receipt of Dr. Fischer's July 6, 1984 letter. In that letter, Dr. Fischer informed Mrs. Lareau that she had Thorotrast in her brain, that there was a theoretical possibility that the Thorotrast could cause her to develop a brain tumor, and that she should have invasive brain surgery to remove it. Mrs. Lareau understood the import of Dr. Fischer's letter; as she said in her deposition testimony, she was like in shock that anything was wrong, and was pretty shooken [sic] up. 23 Mrs. Lareau argues that she acted reasonably after receiving Dr. Fischer's letter but still failed to discover her claims. Accordingly, she contends, the statutes of limitations should not have begun to run in 1984. After reviewing the record, however, we cannot say that Mrs. Lareau acted reasonably. Though she did seek additional opinions from Drs. Scott and Cornell, at no point did she ever make the most basic inquiry about what Thorotrast was or how it might have been harming her. For this reason, her argument that her causes of action did not accrue in July 1984 because she was not told then what Thorotrast was must fail. 24 Mrs. Lareau next contends that her causes of action did not accrue in 1984 because she was not told then that she had a calcified mass, or granuloma, in her brain. 2 While Mrs. Lareau was not told in 1984 that she had a calcified mass in her brain, Mrs. Lareau's doctors noted it on her medical charts at that time. Had Mrs. Lareau inquired as to whether Thorotrast had caused any damage, her physicians might have told her that it could have been the cause of the calcification. Additionally, had Mrs. Lareau asked to see her medical charts, she herself would have seen the notation regarding the calcification. 25 Mrs. Lareau argues, relying on McGuinness v. Cotter, 412 Mass. 617, 591 N.E.2d 659, 666 (1992), that because she did not actually see her medical charts, the fact that her doctors noted her calcification on them does not matter. We do not agree. In McGuinness, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that where a mother had no notice that her son's cerebral palsy might have been caused by medical malpractice, the fact that such cause was contemplated in a doctor's report that she never saw did not trigger the statute of limitations. Id. Unlike Mrs. McGuinness, Mrs. Lareau had notice that there was a problem; she had been advised that she had a chemical in her brain that could cause cancer, that its removal required brain surgery, and that removal was recommended. Therefore, unlike Mrs. McGuinness, who did not suspect and who had no reason to suspect a problem, and who therefore had no reason to ask the doctor to see his report, Mrs. Lareau was on notice and therefore had reason to investigate further. 26 As for her negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims, Mrs. Lareau states that she did not suffer distress until she watched 20/20 in 1989 and therefore that, regardless of when her other claims accrued, her emotional-distress claims did not accrue until then. We do not agree. 27 In Massachusetts, 28 [w]here plaintiffs have suffered directly inflicted personal injuries as a result of a defendant's negligence, courts have not been reluctant to allow recovery for emotional distress, occurring contemporaneously with those personal injuries, as an additional element of damages. In these cases, recovery for emotional distress [is] allowed as a claim 'parasitic' to the 'host' claim of damages for negligently inflicted physical injuries. 29 Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171, 176 (1982) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). We think that the SJC would apply the discovery rule to parasitic claims such that they may be brought when they occur contemporaneously with the discovery of the host claim. In this case, however, we have held as a matter of law that Mrs. Lareau should have discovered her host claims in July 1984. We think that Massachusetts would not allow parasitic claims to defeat the purposes of the discovery rule such that plaintiffs who fail to discover their host claims in time may nonetheless sue for later-discovered parasitic claims. Therefore, we hold that Mrs. Lareau's parasitic claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is barred. 30 In sum, we hold, as a matter of law, that Mrs. Lareau had sufficient notice to have discovered her claims in 1984. Accordingly, with the exception of her consumer-protection claim against Dr. Page, which we discuss below, all of Mrs. Lareau's causes of action accrued in 1984 and are therefore time barred.