Court Opinion

ID: 9569737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:16:52.109127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:52.989124
License: Public Domain

COYTE, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The exception to the statute relied upon by the majority, in my view, has no application to the facts in this case. As I read the statute, an action for lack of informed consent is barred if not brought within the two year period. The exception quoted has application if, e.g., the damaged party, the plaintiff in this case, were to question the surgeon as to the results and then he were to conceal the results of the surgery from the patient. This is what I believe the statute referred to when it states: “If the act or omission which gave rise to the cause of action was knowingly concealed by the person committing such act or omission.”
The claim for relief here is that Dr. Mas-tro did not have plaintiff’s informed consent to perform the operation. It would be immaterial if the lack of informed consent resulted from “knowingly concealing,” not advising or misadvising. Such action would be barred within the two year period “after the person bringing the action discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence . . . should have discovered the injury.”
Here, plaintiff was fully aware of the results of her surgery in July 1977, when she returned to complain to Dr. Mastro of the results of the surgery. At the time this action was commenced on November 19, 1979, it was barred by § 13-80-105, C.R.S. '1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.).