Court Opinion

ID: 9698581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:54:37.8013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.096510
License: Public Domain

SCHUMACHER, Judge
(concurring specially).
Reason and common sense dictate that the discovery rule be applied in medical malpractice cases where a foreign object has been placed in a person’s body and negligently allowed to remain.
In this case, the plaintiff was incapable of knowing that the IUD remained in her body. The law in Minnesota generally holds that ignorance of a cause of action does not toll the statute of limitations. Weston v. Jones, 160 Minn. 32, 36, 199 N.W. 431, 433 (1924). However, that rule of law is based upon the theory that ignorance is the result of want of diligence and the party cannot take advantage of his own fault. Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 39, 235 N.W. 633 (1931).
*483In this case, as in most foreign object malpractice cases, no amount of diligence by the plaintiff could detect the presence of the IUD. The plaintiff could not consult the medical profession regarding observable symptoms such as pain or discoloration because, unfortunately, the IUD caused no such symptoms.
Application of the discovery doctrine in foreign object cases does not offend the policy behind statutes of limitations, which is basically to spare the courts of stale claims, and the citizen from being put on defense after memories have faded, witnesses have died or disappeared, and evidence has been lost. Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314, 65 S.Ct. 1137, 1142, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945) (quoted by Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 108 n. 5, 83 N.W.2d 800, 817 n. 5 (1957)).
As noted by the New Jersey Supreme Court:
It must be borne in mind that [plaintiffs] claim does not raise questions as to her credibility nor does it rest on matters of professional diagnosis, judgment or discretion. It rests on the presence of a foreign object within her abdomen following an operation performed upon her by the defendant-doctors. Here the lapse of time does not entail the danger of a false or frivolous claim, nor the danger of a speculative or uncertain claim.
Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 450-51, 173 A.2d 277, 286 (1961). In foreign object cases, no claim can be made that the patient’s action may be feigned or frivolous. In addition, there is no possible causal break between the negligence of the doctor or hospital and the patient’s injury. Flanagan v. Mount Eden General Hospital, 24 N.Y.2d 427, 430, 301 N.Y.S.2d 23, 26, 248 N.E.2d 871, 872-73 (1969).
In this case, plaintiff must necessarily rely on the physician to remove the object.
The relationship between the utterly helpless surgical patient and his surgeon, during surgery, is such that the latter must be held to have assumed the responsibility for the removal of such articles, * * *.
Melynk v. Cleveland Clinic, 32 Ohio St.2d 198, 200, 290 N.E.2d 916, 917 (1972).
At least 40 states have adopted the discovery rule in foreign object cases. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not ruled on this question. I would urge the adoption of this rule.