Jose Bustamante v. Hector R. Oshiro, M.D.
64 A.3d 1200
R.I.2013Background
- In Oct. 2003, Jose Bustamante presented neck pain; initial imaging and referrals occurred thereafter with inconclusive mass findings.
- May 2005 MRI reportedly revealed a neck mass; Dr. Castano diagnosed a cervical tumor and discussed findings with Jose and Ana on June 2, 2005.
- June 8, 2005 Jose admitted to Jackson Memorial Hospital; June 10, 2005 tumor resection identified as plasmacytoma/cancer.
- Plaintiffs filed a Rhode Island medical malpractice complaint on June 9, 2008, alleging negligence and lack of informed consent.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the three-year statute of limitations (G.L. 1956 § 9-1-14.1) had run.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; court held discovery on June 2, 2005 triggered the three-year period, barring suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the discovery rule start for the malpractice claim? | Bustamante argues discovery began later, at earliest June 10, 2005. | Oshiro argues discovery began June 2, 2005 when tumor was disclosed. | Discovery date: June 2, 2005; statute barred. |
| Is Zuccolo controlling on the discovery date? | Bustamante contends Zuccolo supports later discovery. | Oshiro contends Zuccolo not controlling here. | Zuccolo distinguished; not controlling; June 2, 2005 governs. |
| Does the discovery rule require precise certainty about malpractice at discovery? | Bustamante argues no perfect crystallization required. | Oshiro asserts need for discovery of wrongful act with reasonable diligence. | Reasonable-diligence standard applied; discovery date fixed as June 2, 2005. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanson v. Singsen, 898 A.2d 1244 (R.I. 2006) (discovery rule for malpractice with reasonable-diligence threshold)
- Ashey v. Kupchan, 618 A.2d 1268 (R.I. 1993) (early discovery rule framework)
- Martin v. Howard, 784 A.2d 291 (R.I. 2001) (objective standard for discovery timing)
- Moore v. Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, 18 A.3d 541 (R.I. 2011) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- O'Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hospital, 874 A.2d 179 (R.I. 2005) (viability of statute-of-limitations defense at summary judgment)
- Zuccolo v. Blazar, 694 A.2d 717 (R.I. 1997) (MRI first alerted to alleged wrongful conduct; distinguishing timing)
- Canavan v. Lovett, Schefrin and Harnett, 862 A.2d 778 (R.I. 2004) (remedial inference in discovery-rule analysis)
- Richmond Square Capital Corp. v. Mittleman, 689 A.2d 1067 (R.I. 1997) (employment of discovery rule in context of malpractice)