Donna and Gary Parsons v. Herbert J. Thomas Memorial Hospital
16-1178
| W. Va. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Donna Parsons underwent a hysterectomy by Dr. Betty Goad on June 26, 2013; postoperative infection and enterocutaneous fistula were diagnosed by Dr. Matthew Hofeldt on July 11, 2013, who during surgery found mesh erosion into bowel and a bowel hole of uncertain origin.
- Petitioners were told in late July 2013 that mesh problems might have caused the reoperation; they sought legal counsel later that month and retained a law firm on November 27, 2013, after which an expert (Dr. Awtrey) later opined in 2015 that Dr. Goad caused the bowel injury.
- Petitioners served notices of claim under the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act in July 2015 and timely served screening certificates of merit, received by the Hospital on Sept. 1, 2015 and by Dr. Goad on Sept. 2, 2015.
- Petitioners filed suit on November 24, 2015; defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment asserting the two-year MPLA statute of limitations barred the claim.
- The circuit court treated the motions as summary judgment, held the statute of limitations began to run no later than July 11, 2013 (when the fistula/infection was diagnosed), and concluded the suit was time-barred despite tolling during the notice period.
- The circuit court denied a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend (petitioners argued new evidence/arguments and alleged injustice); the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by treating motions as summary judgment without notice | Parsons: court should have notified parties it was converting to summary judgment | Defendants: motions and filings put parties on notice; exhibits were submitted | Held: No error — parties knew and submitted outside-pleading materials; summary judgment reviewed de novo |
| When statute of limitations began to run for malpractice claim | Parsons: discovery rule tolled until they learned Goad caused injury (expert opinion in 2015); initial belief in mesh culpability reasonable | Defendants: injury and diagnosis (fistula/infection) were known by July 11, 2013; discovery rule tolled only until plaintiff knew something went wrong, not identity/precise act | Held: Limitations began by July 11, 2013; filing Nov. 24, 2015 was untimely; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether court improperly invaded jury province on discovery date | Parsons: factual disputes (origin of bowel hole) required jury determination | Defendants: facts undisputed that injury and diagnosis occurred July 11, 2013, permitting court decision | Held: Court may decide discovery date where facts undisputed; here only one reasonable conclusion exists — limitations ran |
| Whether Rule 59(e) relief was proper based on new evidence/obvious injustice | Parsons: affidavits and arguments did not constitute improper new evidence; denial caused injustice | Defendants: petitioners raised new legal arguments/factual contentions and could have presented earlier | Held: Denial proper under Mey; petitioners merely presented new evidence/arguments and did not show intervening law change or obvious injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Mey v. Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, 228 W. Va. 48, 717 S.E.2d 235 (2011) (Rule 59(e) relief factors)
- Gaither v. City Hospital, Inc., 199 W. Va. 706, 487 S.E.2d 901 (1997) (discovery rule: patient not required to assume malpractice/conspiracy for every adverse result)
- McCoy v. Miller, 213 W. Va. 161, 578 S.E.2d 355 (2003) (clarifies Gaither: limitations runs when patient is placed on notice something went wrong, not when precise malpractice is known)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (summary judgment review standard)
- U.S. Fed. & Guar. Co. v. Eades, 150 W. Va. 238, 144 S.E.2d 703 (1965) (if matters outside pleadings are considered, motion treated as one for summary judgment)