Court Opinion

ID: 9767279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:15:21.895155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:44.655530
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(concurring in result).
In this action plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Smile suffered injuries “as a direct result of the battery committed on the person of plaintiff by the negligent surgery performed by defendant.” It is true, as the principal opinion recites, that the petition also alleges that defendant failed to sufficiently inform Mrs. Smile as to the nature and risk of the surgery and made no effort to treat her with standard nonsurgical methods, but recovery on that basis is not sought. These allegations have nothing to do with whether surgery was performed negligently or with the issue presented on this appeal.
Although I incline to the view that plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories, when considered with plaintiffs’ petition, entitled the trial court to sustain defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and I dissented to a divisional opinion on that basis, I have concluded to concur in result with the principal opinion. I do this on the theory that perhaps the summary judgment record does not show by unassailable proof that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that plaintiffs may be able to produce additional evidence at a trial on the merits.
There are portions of the principal opinion with which I do not agree or about which I have doubts, and these I propose to discuss.
In the first place, I do not agree with the conclusion in the principal opinion that “an inference could reasonably be drawn from the record in this case that the defendant knew that he had severed Mrs. Smile’s laryngeal nerves thereby paralyzing her vocal cords, that he intended by his- conduct and statements to conceal from her the fact that she had a justiciable claim or cause of action against him by reason thereof, and that his acts were fraudulent.” The record on appeal contains only the petition as amended, a request by defendant to plaintiffs for certain admissions (apparently unanswered), interrogatories by defendant to both plaintiffs and their answers thereto, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This record contains absolutely no evidence that the defendant knew he had severed the laryngeal nerves. The petition alleges that defendant severed these nerves and that defendant had knowledge or the means of knowledge, but these are mere allegations, not proof. Mrs. Smile stated in answer to one interrogatory that when she inquired about her difficulty in speaking, the defendant said it was nothing and to clear her throat each time before speaking, but that statement does not show knowledge on his part, nor is it a basis for inferring that the doctor knew he had cut the laryngeal nerves. No other interrogatory or answer shows knowledge. Therefore, I consider it to be erroneous to conclude that the record here on appeal is sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether defendant knew that he had severed Mrs. Smile’s laryngeal nerves, or that defendant intended to mislead plaintiff or conceal facts from her. It is possible that at a trial she might produce such evidence, but knowledge is not shown nor can it be inferred from the record before us.
In connection with a trial herein, it should be pointed out that proof of actual knowledge on the part of the defendant is necessary before fraudulent misrepresentation under § 516.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., may be found. Proof that defendant should have known and was negligent in not knowing is insufficient. Actually, this is recognized in the opinion in Kauchick v. Williams, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 342, decided concurrently herewith. In that opinion the court said, 1. c. 349: “Again the difficulty with Mrs. Kauchick’s position is that there is no evidence to support the finding that Doctor Williams did know what actually caused her difficulty. He testified that he relied upon the X-ray report that her pelvic *330measurement would permit vaginal delivery. Mrs. Kauchick’s expert medical testimony might support a finding that Doctor William’s reliance upon the X-rays and failure to make a clinical measurement was not in accord with the generally accepted medical practice in the community at the time. However, that would not establish that Doctor Williams was aware that he had been negligent and that, in telling Mrs. Kauchick that he did not know what caused her difficulty, he whs endeavoring to conceal his negligence from her in order to avoid an action for malpractice.” (Emphasis supplied).
The question necessarily is whether the defendant had actual knowledge because only then could he be guilty of fraudulent concealment which could toll the statute under § 516.280. The test is not whether a doctor had the means of knowledge or was negligent in not knowing.
Plaintiffs rely solely on § 516.280 to toll the statute of limitations. I agree with the conclusion of the principal opinion (and with the same conclusion reached in Kauchick v. Williams, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 342, decided concurrently herewith) that § 516.280 is applicable to malpractice actions if the facts are such as to justify its application.1 However, I am not in agreement with the principal opinion insofar as it seems to hold or imply that mere silence on the part of defendant doctor would toll the statute of limitations on the basis of the provisions of § 516.280.
What is now § 516.280 has been in our statutes a long time. The particular portion thereof with which we are concerned has been construed by this court, although not, so far as I can ascertain, in a malpractice suit. The “improper act” referred to therein has been held to be an act in the nature of a fraud preventing commencement of the action. For example, in Higgins v. Heine Boiler Co., 328 Mo. 493, 41 S.W.2d 565, 573, the court said: “However, this court, in Davis v. Carp, 258 Mo. 686, 698, 167 S.W. 1042, 1045, was required to interpret the meaning of the words ‘by any other improper act,’ as used in section 1334, Rev.St.1919. We therein ruled: ‘So, the “improper act” referred to in the statute must be one in the nature of a fraud that would prevent the commencement of the action, in order to bring the act within the statute.’ ” 2
In Maynard v. Doe Run Lead Co., 305 Mo. 356, 265 S.W. 94, 99, the court said: “Section 1334, R.S.1919, suspends the running of the statute, where, by some improper conduct, the defendant has prevented the commencement of the action. It might be claimed by the plaintiff that the conduct of the defendants, concealing the true state of affairs from him, prevented his commencing the action, or he might rely upon the equitable doctrine that the statute would not run while fraudulent concealment by defendant of the fact that the plaintiff has a cause of action prevents plaintiff from ascertaining his rights. Whether the statute (Section 1334) or the equitable principle applies, it puts the matter in a different position from what it would be if the statute did not begin to run until the discovery of the fraud. If the action is founded upon fraud, as provided in the last clause of section 1317, the plaintiff must discover the fraud (within 10 years) before the statute begins to run, and it does not matter whether the party who has defrauded him does anything to prevent his discovery or not. On the other hand, if the cause of action is not founded upon fraud as the basis of the case, the ignorance of his rights would not prevent the statute from running. The statute would not be tolled in such case, unless some act of the party against whom he has his cause of *331action has prevented his discovering the facts.” (Emphasis added).
This court also has held that the act relied upon must be some affirmative act, not mere silence. In Maynard v. Doe Run Lead Co., supra, 265 S.W. 1. c. 99, this court, in discussing the statute of limitations, said: “The mere ignorance of the party complaining, or of the silence of the party complained of, would not amount to actionable concealment.” In Shelby County v. Bragg, 135 Mo. 291, 36 S.W. 600, 602, this court, in quoting with approval from Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135, 141, 25 L.Ed. 807, said: “ ‘Concealment by mere silence is not enough. There must be some trick or contrivance intended to exclude suspicion and prevent inquiry.’ ”
Plaintiffs’ petition claims affirmative fraudulent misrepresentation. If that is shown, including evidence of knowledge on the part of defendant, I agree that the statute of limitations would be tolled. However, plaintiffs also allege concealment and claim that mere silence on the part of the defendant would toll the statute of limitations under § 516.280. The principal opinion seems to hold that such silence will toll the statute if a confidential relationship exists between plaintiff and defendant. With this I do not agree.
I find nothing in the language of § 516.-280 which prescribes a different standard or test for different people. It says nothing about those who occupy a confidential relationship and those who do not. When the legislature desired to prescribe a different period of limitation for physicians in malpractice cases than they provided in other classes of torts, they specifically said so. If they had intended to provide special classifications under § 516.280 and to require affirmative acts as to one and mere silence as to the other, they could and would have said so. For us to write in such a provision constitutes judicial legislation.
Furthermore, to hold that mere silence will toll the statute of limitations under § 516.280 is to provide a discovery rule (conditioned only on proof of knowledge on the part of the doctor), although we recently held in Laughlin v. Forgrave, Mo., 432 S.W.2d 308, decided September 9, 1968, and Yust v. Barnett, Mo., 432 S.W.2d 316, decided September 9, 1968, that the legislature in enacting § 516.140 intended to and did leave out of malpractice cases the discovery rule established in § 516.100. It seems illogical to me for us to hold that the legislature intended by § 516.140 to eliminate the discovery rule set out in § 516.100 and then to turn around and hold that a discovery rule in malpractice cases is established by § 516.280.
It may be that one in a confidential relationship has a duty to speak to those with whom he is shown to have such relationship, and that failure to speak breaches that duty and gives the other party a right based thereon. It does not, however, alter the express provisions of § 516.280 and make that statute mean one thing as to a doctor and something else as to a merchant or banker.
The principal opinion says that the Missouri rule on this subject is in accord with the rule in a majority'of the states. I do not find that there is a majority rule which would cause mere silence to toll limitations where the action is one for malpractice against a physician. In 80 A.L.R.2d, Anno: Statute of Limitations — Malpractice, p. 371, it is pointed out at page 407 that, “Some of the authorities apply to malpractice actions the general rule that an affirmative act is necessary as an element of concealment of a cause of action having the effect of tolling limitations.” Subsequently, on page 408, it is stated: “On the other hand, other authorities take the view that because of the relationship of trust and confidence existing between a practitioner and his patient and the former's corresponding duty to disclose material information to the latter, mere silence and failure to disclose to the patient the fact of the injury done to him may constitute fraudulent conceal*332ment of a cause of action for malpractice such as will toll the statute of limitations.”
Reference also is made in the principal opinion to an article in 9 Missouri Law Review 102 by Dean McCleary. That article discussed Thatcher v. De Tar, 351 Mo. 603, 173 S.W.2d 760, which dealt with the provisions of what is now § 516.140. It neither mentioned or had any relationship to the statutory provision which is now § 516.280. The statement of Dean McCleary quoted in the principal opinion was based on Georgia cases which were cited in the footnote. No Missouri statute or case was cited to support the statement.
The principal opinion also cites the recent cases of Hundley v. Martinez, W.Va., 158 S.E.2d 159, and Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Idaho 485, 389 P.2d 224, as involving tolling statutes similar to Missouri and apparently as authority for the proposition that mere silence should toll the statute in an action between a patient and physician. Actually, it seems to me that neither case supports that position. Hund-ley was a suit wherein the plaintiff sought to recover for damage to his eye in an operation performed by the defendant. West Virginia had a statutory provision somewhat similar to our § 516.280. In the course of the opinion, the court said, 158 S.E.2d 165: “It has been held by this Court that obstruction by the defendant must be by a positive act; that mere silence will not constitute obstruction sufficient to toll the running of the statute; and that the act which interfered with the plaintiff’s rights must be alleged.” Subsequently, on the same page, the court said: “The fraudulent concealment, if any, by Doctor Martinez of the injury to the plaintiff’s right eye was the result of a positive act, not mere silence.”
In Billings, the court referred to various A.L.R. Annotations and a change in philosophy in some recent cases. It pointed out that some states have gone to a more liberalized version of the fraudulent concealment rule. With reference thereto, the court then said, 389 P.2d 1. c. 230: “Appellants contend that we should accept the liberalized version of the fraudulent concealment rule. This we are unable to do.” Subsequently, the court announced what is purely a discovery rule, without any reference to silence or concealment. The rule announced was this, 389 P.2d 1. c. 232: “[Wjhere a foreign object is negligently left in a patient’s body by a surgeon and the patient is in ignorance of the fact, and consequently of his right of action for malpractice, the cause of action does not accrue until the patient learns of, or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have learned of the presence of such foreign object in his body.” Incidentally, I find no reference to an Idaho statute comparable to our § 516.280. The case is not authority for holding that mere silence is a fraudulent act under our statutory provision.
In the final analysis, it seems to me that the question is not what some other state does, particularly where the state has a statute not comparable to our § 516.280, or in some instances has no such statute at all, but rather is a question of what § 516.280 means. I would hold that it applies similarly to all persons and that an affirmative act is necessary to toll the statute.
Finally, I would point out that cases construing this tolling statute require diligence on the part of plaintiff. In Shelby County v. Bragg, supra, 36 S.W. 1. c. 602, this court said: “A party cannot avail himself of this exception to the statute where the means of discovering the truth was within his power, and was not used.” The court went on to say: “ ‘There must be reasonable diligence, and the means of knowledge are the same thing, in effect, as knowledge itself.’ ”

. Such a conclusion is advocated in an article by Frederick Davis entitled “Tort Liability and the Statutes of Limitation,” 33 Missouri Law Review, 171, 205.

. Section 1334, Rev.St.1919, referred to in the above quotation, was the same as present § 516.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.