Jensen v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.
424 P.3d 885
Utah2018Background
- Erik Jensen underwent surgery on March 26, 2010, and suffered cardiac arrest on April 1, 2010; he alleged negligent post‑surgical care and resuscitation.
- Jensen filed a notice of intent to sue and a request for prelitigation review on March 21, 2014; the prelitigation panel issued a certificate of compliance on December 26, 2014, and Jensen sued on February 2, 2015.
- IHC moved for summary judgment arguing Jensen’s claim was barred by UHMA’s four‑year filing limit (a statutory repose measured from the alleged act).
- The district court held that filing the prelitigation review request tolled the four‑year period while the panel evaluated the claim; IHC appealed interlocutorily.
- The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether the four‑year period is a statute of repose or limitations and whether UHMA’s tolling provision for an “applicable statute of limitations” includes that four‑year period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does filing a request for prelitigation review toll UHMA’s four‑year deadline? | Jensen: Yes — the request tolls the four‑year period so his suit was timely. | IHC: No — the four‑year period is a statute of repose and not an “applicable statute of limitations” that can be tolled by §78B‑3‑416. | The filing tolled the four‑year period; the claim was not barred. |
| Is the four‑year period a statute of limitations or a statute of repose? | Jensen: (implicitly) treatable as subject to tolling under UHMA. | IHC: It is a statute of repose, not tolled except by explicit statutory language. | The Court reaffirmed it functions as a statute of repose. |
| Does the phrase “applicable statute of limitations” in §78B‑3‑416 unambiguously exclude statutes of repose? | Jensen: The phrase is ambiguous and should be read to include the four‑year period. | IHC: The phrase should be read narrowly to exclude statutes of repose. | The phrase is ambiguous; statutory context and the section title support including the four‑year period. |
| If ambiguous, how should ambiguity be resolved? | Jensen: Title and structure of UHMA indicate the four‑year period was intended to be tolled. | IHC: Legislative use of precise terms elsewhere shows intent to exclude repose. | Court resolved ambiguity by referencing the statute title and harmonious operation of UHMA, ruling tolling applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forbes v. St. Mark’s Hosp., 754 P.2d 933 (Utah 1988) (filing notice of intent tolls UHMA repose)
- Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985) (distinguishing statutes of limitations from statutes of repose)
- CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014) (Congress sometimes uses “statute of limitations” to mean limitation periods generally)
- McBride‑Williams v. Huard, 94 P.3d 175 (Utah 2004) (plaintiffs may sometimes file premature suits rather than comply with prelitigation procedures)
- Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572 (Utah 1993) (referring to UHMA’s four‑year period as a statute of repose)
- Sorensen v. Larsen, 740 P.2d 1336 (Utah 1987) (same)