Court Opinion

ID: 9530154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:57:48.239939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:00.876177
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The court’s characterization of the main question in this case as whether Pedersen’s inquiry was reasonable is possibly misfo-cused.
As the court correctly notes, Pedersen is chargeable with any negligence on the part of his attorney for statute of limitations purposes, and that “[i]t is possible that his lawyers were negligent in failing to review his medical records to look for medical malpractice.” 1
I think it significant that in the course of the Pedersen-Ford litigation, Flanigan (one of Pedersen’s attorneys) reviewed the medical records and saw nothing in them which suggested a medical malpractice claim to him. In my view, the medical records which were in Flanigan’s possession placed him on inquiry notice. In other words, these medical records should have led Flanigan, commencing in February 1986, to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the cause of Pedersen’s paralysis.2 If Flanigan’s inquiry was not reasonable, Ped-ersen’s medical malpractice cause of action accrued, for statute of limitations purposes, in February of 1986.3

.In this regard the court notes that a plaintiff is generally charged with the lapses of an attorney acting in his behalf insofar as constructive notice and diligent investigation impact upon the computation of the applicable limitations period.

. Dr. Martino's November 23, 1984, report reads in part as follows:
[A]fter surgery his legs were flaccid. Currently, on examination he has paraplegia with sensory level at HI.... This is consistent with spinal cord injury, probably at TR 10 or 11. In light of the preservation of posterior function, this may very Well be due to ische-mia suffered as a result of his ruptured aorta and the ensuing surgery.
(Emphasis added.)

. If necessary, on remand the superior court should determine whether a physician’s misrepresentation trumps any negligence on the part of the patient's attorney.