No. 12498
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1974
WILLIAM J . MONROE,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
JACK R. HARPER,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
Scanlon, B r o l i n and Connors, Anaconda, Montana
J a c k M. Scanlon a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana
Louis F o r s e l l argued
For Respondent :
Gough, Booth, Shanahan and Johnson, Helena, Montana
Ronald Waterman a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 14, 1974
Decided :f%@ -1
F i l e d :F E -I1 ~ 4 .
~
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an a c t i o n f o r damages a r i s i n g from a claim of medical
malpractice. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lewis and Clark County, Hon.
P e t e r G. Meloy, d i s t r i c t judge, granted defendant's motion t o
dismiss t h e complaint. From t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment of
d i s m i s s a l and r e f u s a l t o g r a n t a motion t o vacate t h e same,
p l a i n t i f f appeals.
On J u l y 30, 1963, p l a i n t i f f William J. Monroe s u f f e r e d i n -
j u r i e s t o h i s back a s a r e s u l t of an a c c i d e n t while he was em-
ployed by t h e Boland Development Company of Butte, Montana, a s
a c o n t r a c t miner i n t h e Kelly s h a f t . He placed himself under
t h e c a r e of D r . Jack R. Harper, defendant h e r e i n , t h e following
November. Following an examination i n November 1963, defendant
advised p l a i n t i f f t h a t he needed surgery on two ruptured d i s c s i n
t h e lower s p i n a l a r e a and t h a t i f p l a i n t i f f submitted t o an
II a n t e r i o r s p i n a l fusion" with i n s t a l l a t i o n of a s p i n a l clamp
he would be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o work w i t h i n s i x months. On Dec-
ember 30, 1963, defendant performed an a n t e r i o r lumbar s p i n a l
f u s i o n between p l a i n t i f f ' s L-5 v e r t e b r a and t h e sacrum by means
of a t t a c h i n g t o t h e 5 t h lumbar v e r t e b r a and sacrum a device known
a s a T-Humphrey clamp p l a t e .
I n h i s complaint, p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t defendant:
(1) Was n e g l i g e n t i n h i s c a r e and treatment of p l a i n t i f f i n
t h a t he f a i l e d t o possess and e x e r c i s e t h a t degree of s k i l l
o r d i n a r i l y possessed by r e p u t a b l e members of h i s profession;
( 2 ) Was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o o b t a i n p l a i n t i f f ' s f u l l y
informed consent t o t h e operation;
(3) Was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s u l t with more q u a l i f i e d
physicians; and
(4) Fraudulently concealed from p l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e T-Humphrey
clamp p l a t e was an experimental device, and t h a t p l a i n t i f f believed
and r e l i e d upon statements made by defendant t o t h e c o n t r a r y .
P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t defendant knew and concealed
from p l a i n t i f f h i s " t r u e c o n d i t i o n " and p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t d i s -
11
cover t h e fraud" u n t i l he r e a d a newspaper account i n May 1972,
o f a n o t h e r s u i t brought a g a i n s t defendant by one I v a r Stenberg.
It was a t t h i s time t h a t p l a i n t i f f l e a r n e d t h e o p e r a t i o n per-
formed was unique, unorthodox and experimental and t h a t t h e
II T-Humphrey Clamp P l a t e was a n experimental device. 1I
P l a i n t i f f f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t on January 22,
1973, t o r e c o v e r damages r e s u l t i n g from t h e a l l e g e d p r o f e s s i o n a l
n e g l i g e n c e o f defendant. Plaintiff alleged that a s a "~roximate
r e s u l t " o f d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e he was t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d from
J u l y 30, 1963, t h e d a t e of t h e mine a c c i d e n t , u n t i l December 1,
1969; and t h a t he i s now permanently p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s and
denied p l a i n t i f f ' s motion t o v a c a t e such d i s m i s s a l . Although
t h e grounds were n o t s t a t e d , both p a r t i e s concede t h e c o u r t ' s
a c t i o n w a s based on t h e b a r of t h e t h r e e y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a -
tions. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment
o f d i s m i s s a l and r e f u s a l t o v a c a t e t h e same.
The o n l y i s s u e i s whether t h e a c t i o n i s b a r r e d by t h e t h r e e
y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i n s e c t i o n 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947,
which r e q u i r e s commencement w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s o f :
"3. An a c t i o n upon a n o b l i g a t i o n o r l i a b i l i t y ,
n o t founded upon an instrument i n w r i t i n g , o t h e r
than a c o n t r a c t , account o r promise. 1I
P l a i n t i f f contends t h e t h r e e y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s
should begin t o r u n from t h e d a t e p l a i n t i f f discovered t h e "fraud",
t h a t i s , l4ay 1972; t h e d a t e he r e a d a newspaper account of an-
o t h e r s u i t brought a g a i n s t defendant r e l a t i n g t o a s i m i l a r type
of o p e r a t i o n . Defendant, on t h e o t h e r hand, contends t h e t h r e e
y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s should b e g i n t o r u n from t h e d a t e
of t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e , t h a t i s , December 1963, t h e d a t e of
the operation.
p l a i n t i f f ' s argument i s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was suspended by
reason of f r a u d u l e n t concealment. He contends t h e d o c t r i n e of
f r a u d u l e n t concealment i s recognized i n Montana. Carlson v. Ray
Geophysical Div., 156 Mont. 450, 481 P.2d 327. Further, t h a t
f r a u d u l e n t concealment i s present i n t h i s c a s e by reason of
defendant's f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e t o p l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e o p e r a t i o n
was unique, unorthodox, and experimental. He argues t h a t t h e
complaint on i t s f a c e does n o t show whether t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i -
t a t i o n s had run and, t h e r e f o r e , he should be allowed t o prove t h e
exception of f r a u d u l e n t concealment t o t h e running of t h e s t a t u t e .
W accept p l a i n t i f f ' s general contention t h a t i n c e r t a i n mal-
e
p r a c t i c e a c t i o n s t h e l i m i t a t i o n period begins t o run when t h e
p a t i e n t d i s c o v e r s , o r by t h e use of reasonable d i l i g e n c e could
have discovered, h i s i n j u r y . Johnson v. St. p a t r i c k ' s Hosp.,
148 Mont. 125, 417 P.2d 469; Grey v. S i l v e r B w County, 149 Mont.
o
213, 425 P.2d 819. But, t h e d o c t r i n e of "discovery" o r "fraudu-
l e n t concealment" i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e i n s t a n t case.
S t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n a r e regarded a s s t a t u t e s of repose
governing t h e period w i t h i n which a c t i o n s must be brought and
a r e designed t o compel t h e e x e r c i s e of a r i g h t of a c t i o n w i t h i n
a reasonable t i m e , while t h e evidence remains f r e s h i n t h e memory
of t h e witnesses. They a l s o serve t h e purpose of suppressing
s t a l e o r f r a u d u l e n t claims. Anaconda Min. Co. v. S a i l e , 16 Mont.
8 , 39 B. 909; B i l l i n g s v, S i s t e r s of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Ida. 485,
389 P.2d 224; 51 Am J u r 2d, Limitation of Actions, $ 16.
However, i n a t o r t a c t i o n based upon malpractice, t h e applica-
t i o n of t h e g e n e r a l r u l e becomes d i f f i c u l t where t h e i n j u r e d
person i s prevented from knowing of h i s i n j u r y due t o concealment
of f a c t s by t h e t r e a t i n g physician, o r where, by i t s very n a t u r e ,
i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o discover t h e i n j u r y u n t i l a l a t e r d a t e . In
such c a s e s most c o u r t s give r e c o g n i t i o n t o c e r t a i n implied excep-
t i o n s which t o l l t h e running of t h e s t a t u t e when i t can be shown
t h a t fraud has been p e r p e t r a t e d upon t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y s u f f i c i e n t
t o place him i n ignorance of h i s r i g h t t o a cause of a c t i o n o r t o
prevent him from discovering his injury. Buck v Mouradian,
.
(~1a.App. 1958), 100 S.2d 70. The purpose is to promote equity
and justice of the individual case by preventing a party from
asserting his rights under a general technical rule of law when
he has so conducted himself that it would be contrary to equity
and good conscience to avail himself of his legal defense.
Lakeman v, La France, 102 N.H. 300, 156 A.2d 123.
Although not applicable here, the Montana legislature in 1971
saw fit to adopt by statute this exception to the general rule;
where such failure to disclose is known or through the use of
reasonable diligence subsequent to said negligent act would have
been known to the medical practitioner. Section 93-2624, R.C.M.
1947.
The doctrines of "discovery1'and "fraudulent concealment" are
most commonly applied to fact situations &ere a foreign object
is negligently left in the patient's body during the course of
the operation and it is not until a later date that the foreign
object is discovered. Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wash.2d 660, 453 P.2d 631,
They also have been applied to actions as to the wrongful removal
of organs or negligent diagnosis or where subsequent infections
caused by improper sterilization were not discovered until a
later date. Janisch v. Mullins, 1 Wash.App. 393, 461 P.2d 895;
Anno. 80 ALR2d 368. In these cases the plaintiff alleged that
a past negligent act was fraudulently concealed or a subsequent
injury occurred which could not have been discovered by the
patient through reasonable diligence at the time the act took place.
To toll the statute of limitations the fraud must be of such
a character as to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or to
mislead the party who claims the cause of action. Guy v. Schuldt,
236 Ind. 101, 138 N.E.2d 891. There first must be injury and then
concealment. It is the cause of action which must be fraudulently
concealed by failing to disclose the fact of injury from mal-
practice, by diverting the patient from discovering the malpractice
t h a t i s t h e b a s i s of t h e a c t i o n . Eschenbacher v. Hier, 363 Mich.
676, 110 N.W.2d 731. Fraudulent concealment has been described
a s t h e employment of a r t i f i c e , planned t o prevent i n q u i r y o r
escape i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and mislead o r hinder a c q u i s i t i o n of i n -
formation d i s c l o s i n g a r i g h t of a c t i o n . Draws v. Levin, 332 Mich.
447, 52 N.W.2d 180.
From t h e f a c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint i t i s apparent t h e
d o c t r i n e of f r a u d u l e n t concealment i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t
case. I n e f f e c t , p l a i n t i f f i s r e a l l y a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e operation
was performed without h i s informed consent. The complaint a l l e g e s
t h a t defendant d i d n o t make a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of t h e "experimental
n a t u r e t t of t h e operation t o be performed.
This i s n o t t h e t y p i c a l f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e d o c t r i n e
i s applied where t h e defendant-physician informed t h e p a t i e n t
t h a t he would operate i n one manner, y e t s e l e c t e d another method
of procedure and f a i l e d t o inform t h e p a t i e n t of t h e change. Nor
i s t h i s a s i t u a t i o n where t h e physician f r a u d u l e n t l y conceals
a p a s t n e g l i g e n t a c t i n o r d e r t o prevent i n q u i r y o r hinder acqui-
s i t i o n of information d i s c l o s i n g t h e f a c t of i n j u r y o r a r i g h t
of a c t i o n .
I n h i s complaint p l a i n t i f f admits knowledge of t h e type of
operation t o be performed. It i s conceded t h a t p l a i n t i f f was
aware t h a t defendant intended t o perform an a n t e r i o r f u s i o n with
a clamp p l a t e t o be i n s e r t e d i n h i s back. P l a i n t i f f was informed
i n d e t a i l of t h e operation procedure t o be performed and admits
he consented t o t h a t operation.
I n a d d i t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o prove fraudulent con-
cealment, i t appears t h a t he was n o t reasonably d i l i g e n t i n h i s
discovery of t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t a c t . P l a i n t i f f admits by way
of a l l e g a t i o n t h a t defendant assured him he would be a b l e t o
r e t u r n t o work w i t h i n s i x months of t h e operation. Yet, f o r s i x
years a f t e r t h e operation p l a i n t i f f admits t o being t o t a l l y d i s -
abled and permanently p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d s i n c e then. He had
n o t i c e , by t h e continuing d i s a b i l i t y , t h a t t h e operation had n o t
succeeded, a s expected. H i s condition should have provided him
with n o t i c e of f a i l u r e and should have put on i n q u i r y t o a s c e r -
t a i n why t h e f a i l u r e had occurred. However, p l a i n t i f f d i d not
i n q u i r e , r a t h e r he s l e p t on and ignored t h i s n o t i c e . Eight y e a r s
elapsed between t h e t i m e p l a i n t i f f was assured recovery and
t h e f i l i n g of h i s claim. H i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he was damaged
comes too l a t e . It i s now barred by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s .
Section 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed.
Justice