Court Opinion

ID: 9762416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:23:03.098788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:34.263914
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the Gilbert, Bill, Bowling, Martin, and Butner cases are barred by KRS 413.140(l)(e), except upon proof of fraudulent concealment. The majority has flatly declared that in every circumstance, the death of a hospital patient amounts to notice of the possibility of malpractice and commences the running of the one-year period of limitation. I believe such a rule is illogical when applied to elderly, severely ill persons, the circumstances which prevailed in the instant cases. In other words, I do not believe the death of a hospital patient which appears to be from natural causes raises a duty of inquiry into the possibility of wrongful death.
In Tomlinson v. Siehl, Ky., 459 S.W.2d 166 ((1970), this Court departed from settled precedent and held that a cause of action for medical negligence does not accrue until the discovery of the injury. In so doing, we acknowledged the possibility that prosecution of stale claims might work a hardship upon physicians, but concluded that “when measured against total loss of plaintiffs cause of action barred under the former rule, we think the change is less likely to produce injustice.” Id. at 168. As urged by appellants, this Court should adopt a rule which requires commencement of wrongful death actions within one year from the discovery of the negligent or intentional acts which caused the death rather than the date of death.
Except as stated herein, I concur with the opinion of the Court.