247 A.3d 674
Del.2021Background
- In April 2011 Dr. Ramani performed a colonoscopy on William King and at an April 26, 2011 follow-up recommended a repeat colonoscopy in three to five years.
- Plaintiffs allege that, given King’s high-risk history, the standard of care required a three-year follow-up; they claim the 3–5 year recommendation was negligent and caused a delayed cancer diagnosis.
- King underwent another colonoscopy (or attempted procedure) on March 26, 2016, when a cancerous growth was discovered; he died months later. Plaintiffs filed wrongful-death suit on April 16, 2018.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the action is time-barred under 18 Del. C. § 6856 because the statute runs from the date of the alleged negligent act (April 26, 2011).
- The Superior Court applied Delaware’s continuous negligent medical treatment doctrine and held the limitations period ran from March 26, 2016, making the complaint timely after tolling.
- On interlocutory appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s application of the continuous-negligence doctrine and held the statute-of-limitations question requires a factual finding on when the injury occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware’s continuous negligent medical treatment doctrine applies so statute runs from last treatment (Mar. 26, 2016) | Anderson: the doctrine should apply (or be extended) so the statute runs from the last related treatment | Defendants: doctrine does not apply because the March 2016 encounter was not an act of negligence and thus not part of a negligent continuum | Court: doctrine does not apply here because the March 2016 procedure was not alleged to be negligent and thus not part of a negligent continuum; Superior Court erred |
| How to determine when an “injury occurred” under 18 Del. C. § 6856 in a single-act context | Anderson: date-of-injury can be later (and doctrine/discovery rules should be extended for cancer cases) | Defendants: for single-act negligence the statute runs from the date of the negligent act (April 26, 2011) per precedent | Court: precedent does not rigidly mandate coincidence of negligence and injury when the record supports a later-occurring injury; court must make a factual finding on when the injury occurred and then apply § 6856 |
| Whether this Court should adopt a new limited discovery rule or extend the continuous doctrine for cancer cases | Anderson: adopt limited discovery rule or extend doctrine to cover these facts | Defendants: oppose extension; apply current statutes/precedent | Court: declines to adopt new discovery rule or extend doctrine; leaves constitutional arguments for remand if statute bars the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ewing v. Beck, 520 A.2d 653 (Del. 1987) (adopts Delaware continuous negligent medical treatment doctrine; statute runs from last act in negligent continuum)
- Dunn v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 401 A.2d 77 (Del. 1979) (interprets § 6856 legislative history and holds injury date tied to wrongful act in typical single-act cases)
- Meekins v. Barnes, 745 A.2d 893 (Del. 2000) (en banc) (applies Dunn: statute ran from date of misdiagnosis, not later manifestation)
- Dambro v. Meyer, 974 A.2d 121 (Del. 2009) (applies Dunn/Meekins; delay in treatment is the injury and occurs when diagnosis was missed)
- Layton v. Allen, 246 A.2d 794 (Del. 1968) (pre-§ 6856 discovery rule: injury date may be when injury first manifests for inherently unknowable injuries)