Jean Ho-Rath v. Rhode Island Hospital
115 A.3d 938
R.I.2015Background
- Yendee Ho-Rath was born in 1998 with a genetic disorder allegedly due to negligent pre-natal/genetic testing and treatment; her parents (Jean and Bunsan) filed suit in 2010 when she was 12.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple hospitals, physicians, and later added Corning and Quest; claims included medical malpractice on behalf of Yendee and parents' individual loss-of-consortium claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as time‑barred under R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14.1 (three-year malpractice statute), which contains a tolling/subsequent‑file provision for minors.
- The Superior Court granted dismissal, concluding (1) claims brought on behalf of a minor must be filed within three years of the incident (unless none was filed, in which case the minor may sue within three years after majority), and (2) parents could not bring loss‑of‑consortium later alongside the child's future suit. Final judgments entered; appeals followed.
- This Court affirmed dismissal of the claims now (so Yendee may later sue after reaching majority), but held that parents’ derivative loss‑of‑consortium claims may be tolled and joined to any timely suit the child brings after reaching majority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9-1-14.1(1) allows a minor's malpractice suit to be brought at any time before majority (and thereafter by the minor within three years after majority) | Ho‑Rath: § 9-1-14.1(1) should be read like general tolling (§ 9-1-19); a suit can be brought at any time before majority, and the minor then has 3 years after majority | W&I/others: § 9-1-14.1(1) limits tolling; a suit on a minor's behalf must be commenced within 3 years of the incident or else the minor alone may sue after majority | Court: § 9-1-14.1(1) gives two options — parent/next‑friend may sue within 3 years of occurrence; if no suit is brought within 3 years, the minor may sue only after reaching majority and then within 3 years thereafter (affirmed dismissal now; minor retains later 3‑year window) |
| Whether parents' loss‑of‑consortium claims are tolled alongside the minor's claim and may be joined to a child’s future suit after majority | Ho‑Rath: parents' claims are derivative of the child's claims and thus entitled to the same tolling under § 9-1-14.1(1) | Defendants: parents are adults, not disabled; their separate derivative claims must be filed within 3 years of the incident and are not tolled by the child's minority | Court: derivative loss‑of‑consortium claims are tolled with the child's malpractice claim under § 9-1-14.1(1) and may be asserted alongside a timely suit the child brings after majority (dismissal affirmed now but parents may join later) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bakalakis v. Women & Infants' Hospital, 619 A.2d 1105 (R.I. 1993) (held § 9-1-14.1 limits amendment/serial joinder of new defendants after three years when suit was timely filed on minor's behalf)
- Rachal v. O'Neil, 925 A.2d 920 (R.I. 2007) (reaffirmed § 9-1-14.1 as an exception to general minor‑tolling § 9-1-19 for professional malpractice)
- Dowd v. Rayner, 655 A.2d 679 (R.I. 1995) (discussed legislative purpose of § 9-1-14.1: streamline malpractice litigation and limit serial suits)
- Desjarlais v. USAA Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1272 (R.I. 2003) (held derivative consortium claims must be joined with the underlying claim when feasible)
- Normandin v. Levine, 621 A.2d 713 (R.I. 1993) (explained derivative consortium claim is a separate cause that must be timely asserted; one spouse's timely suit does not save the other's late claim)
- Ho‑Rath v. Rhode Island Hospital, 89 A.3d 806 (R.I. 2014) (prior opinion in this case addressing applicable statutes and pleading issues)
- Bliven v. Wheeler, 50 A. 644 (R.I. 1901) (earlier precedent applying general tolling for minors under the prior statutory scheme)