Court Opinion

ID: 9727816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:43.29009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:43.256076
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur specially to note my basic disagreement with the opinion of this court in Wells v. Billars, 391 N.W.2d 668 (S.D.1986), upon which Schoenrock bases his claim. Wells relied on Alberts v. Giebink, 299 N.W.2d 454 (S.D.1980), for the so-called “continuing treatment rule,” but the majority in Wells failed to recognize that Al-berts, a medical malpractice case, involved the alleged negligence of leaving a foreign body in a surgical patient. This type of negligence is treated as an exception to the usual rules of medical malpractice. I recognize that Wells is now the settled law and I do not have the votes to overturn it, but since, even under the Wells decision, the statute of limitations is not tolled, I can otherwise concur in the majority opinion.