Court Opinion

ID: 9635056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:34:19.377417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:16.621271
License: Public Domain

ROACH, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion advances persuasive policy arguments for the adoption of *526the continuous course of treatment doctrine. If I were serving as a legislator and these arguments were made on the floor of the General Assembly, I would probably support the adoption of the continuous course of treatment doctrine. However, we do not sit as legislators, and, therefore, I must dissent.
Our predecessor court made clear that “[t]he legislature’s power to enact statutes of limitation governing the time in which a cause of action must be asserted by suit is, of course, unquestioned.” Saylor v. Hall, 497 S.W.2d 218, 224 (Ky.1973) (emphasis added); see also Gilbert v. Barkes, 987 S.W.2d 772, 776 (Ky.1999) (citing to Saylor and stating that “[i]t is well established that the legislature has the power to limit the time in which a common law action can be brought”). In medical malpractice cases, the General Assembly has unequivocally answered this policy question. KRS 413.140(l)(e) states that a negligence action against a physician “shall be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued.” KRS 413.140(2) then states that for actions subject to KRS 413.140(l)(e), “the cause of action shall be deemed to accrue at the time the injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered.”
By requiring that actions be brought within one year of the time the “injury is first discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered,” the General Assembly has adopted the discovery rule for tolling the medical malpractice statute of limitation. And, quite simply, the phrases “injury is first discovered” and “should have been discovered” means precisely what they say: that the statute of limitation begins to run when the injury is first discovered or should have been discovered. Discovery occurs when a patient knows that he or she has been wronged and by whom the wrong has been committed. Wiseman v. Alliant Hospitals, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 709, 712 (Ky.2000).
The evidence clearly established that Ms. Harrison had discovered or at least should have discovered her injury by 1998. Her post-operative difficulties from her 1997 surgery were easily observable. As the Court of Appeals noted, the 1997 surgery resulted in “[disfiguring complications ..., including nipple loss.” As a result, she sought “second opinions” from a second doctor, then a third doctor, and then a fourth doctor. She was concerned enough that in 1998 she even consulted with an attorney (on whose advice she consulted the third doctor). There is simply no way that Ms. Harrison had no knowledge of her injury. Thus, her suit against Dr. Valentini in November 2000 was clearly time-barred under KRS 413.140.
The majority, however, has, through pure judicial fiat, supplanted the statutorily prescribed discovery rule with the continuous course of treatment rule. The majority opinion admits that “neither the discovery rule nor KRS 413.140 affords the physician and patient an opportunity to significantly cooperate with each other to improve the initial results or mitigate the damages caused by the poor treatment.” Ante at 524.1 This is, in effect, an admission that the continuous course of treatment rule is different than the discov*527ery rule that is clearly set forth in KRS 413.140. This is where the inquiry as to what rule to apply should end. However, the majority has succumbed to the siren’s call to make “good” policy and, preferring a rule that facilitates physician-patient cooperation, chooses to ignore both the clear language of the statute and our settled precedent concerning statutes of limitation. The result of this reasoning is the blanket application of a new bright-line rule that has not been enacted by the General Assembly. I am awestruck by the Court’s willingness to make such a raw policymaking pronouncement, especially in the face of decades of controlling precedent and, more importantly, statutory enactment.
In an attempt to find any legal authority in Kentucky for its enactment of this new policy, the majority relies upon Alagia, Day, Trautwein & Smith v. Broadbent, 882 S.W.2d 121 (Ky.1994). Although the Court discussed the legal malpractice analog of the continuous course of treatment rale, namely the continuous representation rule, in Alagia, Day, it did so only in dicta. Ultimately, the Court did not adopt the continuous representation rule, noting that the rule “is not controlling here” and that the case “must be decided on the occurrence rule.” Id. at 125.2
The majority also claims support for adoption of the rule in the following language from Wiseman v. Alliant Hospitals, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 709 (Ky.2000):
One who possesses no medical knowledge should not be held responsible for discovering an injury based on the wrongful act of a physician. The nature of the tort and the character of the injury usually require reliance on what the patient is told by the physician or surgeon. The fiduciary relationship between the parties grants a patient the right to rely on the physician’s knowledge and skill.
Id. at 712-13. What this language means, however, is that the continuous course of treatment doctrine (as opposed to “rule”) might, at most, be a useful tool for tolling a statute of limitation based on the discovery rule — in an appropriate ease. This is why the dicta in Alagia, Day noted that “the continuous representation rule is a branch of the discovery rule,” rather than a replacement. 882 S.W.2d at 125. As a court of law, however, we simply are not at liberty to adopt a wholly new rule to replace the one that the General Assembly has enacted. Furthermore, it is unnecessary in this case to consider the application of the continuous course of treatment doctrine as a tolling method given that Ms. Harrison’s injury was so very obvious. Yet, this is exactly what the majority has done.
The General Assembly has determined that a medical negligence claim must be brought within one year after the “injury is first discovered” and since the judiciary has no power to re-write the statute to *528conform to our own notions of right and wrong, I respectfully dissent.
COOPER and GRAVES, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.

. The majority also describes the requirements of the discovery rule as "problematic.” Ante at 524. While noting the various deficiencies in the discovery rule may very well be a good policy argument against the discovery rule, the simple fact is that the discovery rule is what the General Assembly has chosen to enact.

. The "occurrence" rule is unique to the legal malpractice statute of limitation and is not a part of the medical malpractice statute of limitation, which uses only the discovery rule. Compare KRS 413.245 (legal malpractice statute of limitation), with KRS 413.140(l)(e) & (2) (medical malpractice statute of limitation). The occurrence rule basically establishes a second limitation period, separate and in addition to that stemming from the discovery rule, for legal malpractice cases. See Alagia, Day, 882 S.W.2d at 125 "|T]here are actually two periods of limitation, the first being one year from the date of the occurrence and the second being one year from the date of discovery if it is later in time.” (citing Michels v. Sklavos, 869 S.W.2d 728 (1994)).