Arnold v. Grigsby
417 P.3d 606
Utah2018Background
- In 1999 Gina Arnold suffered a colon perforation during a colonoscopy; subsequent complications required multiple surgeries and transfer to a tertiary hospital where she received emergency colostomy surgery.
- Arnold believed she might have a malpractice claim; a home-health nurse wrote a sticky note in August 1999 indicating Arnold had been told by her lawyer not to sign payment forms and was preparing a suit. Arnold later sought medical records and changed counsel.
- Arnold sued Dr. Gary White, Dr. David Grigsby, and Uintah Basin Medical Center in December 2001. Grigsby moved for summary judgment in 2005 arguing the two-year medical-malpractice statute of limitations had run.
- The case resulted in multiple appeals; the Utah Supreme Court in prior iterations reversed grants of summary judgment and remanded for jury determination of when Arnold discovered or should have discovered her legal injury.
- On remand the trial court granted summary judgment only as to actual knowledge (finding Arnold did not actually know more than two years before filing) but denied summary judgment on the "should have discovered" (reasonably diligent discovery) issue; the case proceeded to a jury, which found Arnold’s claim was time-barred.
- Arnold appealed, raising (1) denial of her motion for summary judgment, (2) evidentiary rulings (admission of husband’s testimony and nurse’s note; exclusion of other evidence), (3) denial of directed verdict, and (4) allegedly misleading jury instructions. The Court affirmed and dismissed Grigsby’s cross-appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Arnold’s motion for summary judgment on "should have discovered" was error | Arnold: prior Utah Supreme Court decision (Arnold IV) and the record establish as a matter of law she did not and should not have discovered the claim more than two years before filing | Grigsby: disputed factual record meant summary judgment was improper; issue should go to jury | Court: Denial of summary judgment not reviewable because it turned on disputed facts; Arnold IV did not mandate summary judgment for plaintiff |
| Admissibility of husband’s testimony recounting an unidentified nurse’s statement that Arnold would die unless transferred | Arnold: statement was inadmissible hearsay | Grigsby: statement admissible to explain husband’s decision to seek transfer | Court: Admission proper; statement offered to show effect on hearer (not truth) and met foundation under Rule 602; not unduly prejudicial |
| Admissibility of home-health nurse’s sticky note (noting Arnold had been told by lawyer not to sign forms and was preparing suit) | Arnold: note inadmissible hearsay | Grigsby: admissible under business-records exception and other hearsay exceptions (state of mind) | Court: Portions admissible under Rule 803(6) and 803(3); court properly analyzed hearsay-within-hearsay and struck only opinion language |
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted for Arnold (i.e., insufficient evidence for Grigsby) | Arnold: evidence admitted at trial compels judgment that her suit was not time-barred | Grigsby: sufficient evidence (suspicious course of treatment, plaintiff’s conduct and statements) supported jury finding that she should have discovered claim earlier | Court: Denied directed verdict improper; viewing evidence in favor of prevailing party, reasonable jury could find claim time-barred; judge must not weigh credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold v. Grigsby, 289 P.3d 449 (Utah 2012) (remanding for jury determination on discovery/limitations issue)
- Kerr v. City of Salt Lake, 322 P.3d 669 (Utah 2013) (denial of summary judgment not reviewed when based on disputed facts)
- Collins v. Wilson, 984 P.2d 960 (Utah 1999) (jury may infer discovery from pattern of treatment and plaintiff’s suspicions)
- State v. Workman, 122 P.3d 639 (Utah 2005) (standards of review for admissibility of evidence)
- Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Atkin, Wright & Miles, Chartered, 681 P.2d 1258 (Utah 1984) (appellate courts should not weigh evidence or assess credibility)
- Butler v. Naylor, 983 P.2d 41 (Utah 1999) (jury-instruction error reversible only if prejudicial)