Court Opinion

ID: 9657442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:26:33.771538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:45.281976
License: Public Domain

SCHULTZ, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree that the six-year limitation period under Iowa Code section 614.1(9) applies to the discovery rule. I disagree, however, that section 614.1(9) does not apply to fraudulent concealment claims. I believe the six-year limitation period applies equally to the doctrine of fraudulent concealment as well as the discovery rule.
Initially, we do not resort to rules of statutory construction when the terms of the statute are plain and unambiguous. Willis v. City of Des Moines, 357 N.W.2d 567, 570 (Iowa 1984). Likewise, when the meaning is clear, courts are not permitted to search for meaning beyond the express terms. State v. Sullivan, 326 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Iowa 1982). Section 614.1(9) states that “in no event shall any action be brought more than six years after the date on which” the act or omission occurred “unless a foreign object unintentionally left in the body caused the injury or death.” (Emphasis added.) The majority’s interpretation that “any action” applies to the discovery rule but not to fraudulent concealment claims is a strained and unnecessary construction of section 614.1(9).
Furthermore, even if statutory interpretation of section 614.1(9) is required, the majority ignores a basic rule of construction. That is, when the legislature provides an exception to a general proscription, it is presumed no other exceptions are *389created. Iowa Farmers Purchasing Association v. Huff, 260 N.W.2d 824, 827 (Iowa 1977). Legislative intent is expressed by both inclusions and exclusions; reference to one thing implies the exclusion of others. In re Estate of Wilson, 202 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Iowa 1972). The sole exception under section 614.1(9) for injury or death caused by “a foreign object unintentionally left in the body” implies there are no other exceptions to the six-year limitation period.
We have indicated that our decision in Baines v. Blenderman, 223 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Iowa 1974) triggered the enactment of section 614.1(9). Farnum v. G.D. Searle & Co., 339 N.W.2d 392, 395 (Iowa 1983). We stated in Farnum that “[sjection 614.1(9) was enacted as part of a comprehensive act as a response to ‘a critical situation’ caused by, ‘the high cost and impending unavailability of medical malpractice insurance.’” 339 N.W.2d at 395 (quoting 1975 Iowa Acts ch. 239, § 1). It seems illogical to attribute the sole reason for the statute is the elimination of the discovery rule when the doctrine of fraudulent concealment is likewise costly and affects the availability of insurance coverage. I believe the legislature intended the six-year limitation period under section 614.1(9) to apply to all malpractice claims except for “foreign object” claims as set forth in the statute. I therefore would affirm the trial court’s ruling.
UHLENHOPP and McGIYERIN, JJ., join this dissent.