Jean Ho-Rath v. Rhode Island Hospital
89 A.3d 806
R.I.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Jean and Bunsan Ho-Rath and their minor daughter Yendee allege medical negligence across multiple defendants for injuries from Yendee’s alpha-thalassemia; suit filed July 16, 2010 with a 124-page amended complaint later naming twenty-four defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing time-bar under § 9-1-14.1 (minor tolling) and, for some, lack of proper naming in the original complaint.
- Trial court held all claims sounded in medical malpractice and thus governed by § 9-1-14.1, concluding injuries occurred more than three years before suit and no applicable discovery rule was pled.
- Judgments were entered in favor of Corning Incorporated and Quest Diagnostics, LLC (which were later vacated), and RIH and W&I defendants’ appeals were assigned for full briefing and argument.
- The court identified two dispositive questions: (i) how § 9-1-14.1(1) tolls or permits filing for minors before/after majority; (ii) whether parents’ derivative claims are tolled or must be filed within the same period; and it reserved the remaining claims for full calendar consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of §9-1-14.1(1) tolling for minors | Ho-Rath argue child claims may be brought anytime before majority and then within three years after majority | Defendants contend strict three-year windows: before majority or after majority only, with no mid-course tolling | Causes assigned for full argument; no ruling yet on tolling interpretation |
| Derivative claims tolling by parents | Parents’ derivative claims toll along with child’s medical claims | Derivative claims governed by separate limitations period for medical malpractice | Issue to be addressed in full briefing; no decision here |
| Corning/Quest claims: ordinary negligence vs medical malpractice | Claims against Corning/Quest fall outside medical malpractice | Laboratories are within medical malpractice scope | Laboratory defendants deemed ordinary negligence; §9-1-19 applies; judgments vacated for Corning and Quest |
| Scope of assignment to regular calendar | Narrow questions resolved; broader issues heard on calendar | All issues ripe for full briefing | Appeals assigned to regular calendar for full briefing and argument (no final resolution on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vigue v. John E. Fogarty Memorial Hospital, 481 A.2d 1 (R.I. 1984) (defined medical malpractice for purposes of the tolling statute; laboratories not included under the definition)
- Bakalakis v. Women Infants’ Hospital, 619 A.2d 1105 (R.I. 1993) (9-1-14.1(1) precludes certain minor filings and consolidation rules)
- Dowd v. Rayner, 655 A.2d 679 (R.I. 1995) (support for tolling interpretation of minor-plaintiff actions)
- Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Minardi, 21 A.3d 274 (R.I. 2011) (rule on motion to dismiss; standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Pierce v. Rhode Island Hospital, 875 A.2d 424 (R.I. 2005) (references definitions of medical malpractice and related statutory context)