2:23-cv-00097
E.D. Wash.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs alleged they suffered permanent injury from unnecessary lumbar surgeries performed by two former neurosurgeons at Providence St. Mary Medical Center.
- Plaintiffs sued Providence entities for direct and vicarious negligence regarding these surgeries.
- The Court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding the claims were time-barred under Washington’s statute of limitations for medical negligence.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court made errors regarding the statute of limitations, discovery rule, and fraudulent concealment.
- The matter was considered without oral argument, and the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ new submissions did not meet the standard for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for discovery rule accrual | The Court improperly put burden on Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs bear burden under law | Plaintiffs carry the burden; Court applied correct standard |
| Timeliness of discovery and due diligence | Court should reconsider accrual date due to fiduciary duty | Plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence | Accrual date was not tolled; due diligence not shown |
| Summary judgment standard under discovery rule | Proper burden shows summary judgment was inappropriate | No genuine issue of material fact | Defendants met burden; summary judgment correct |
| Tolling due to fraudulent concealment | Defendants fraudulently concealed basis for claims | Issue was waived; not raised earlier | Argument waived; not grounds for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (reconsideration is permitted for newly discovered evidence, manifest error, or change in law)
- United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2009) (legal arguments or evidence available earlier do not warrant reconsideration)
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 59(e) motion cannot assert arguments that could have been made earlier)
- Frederick S. Wyle Prof'l Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1985) ("newly discovered evidence" does not include evidence already available pre-summary judgment)