Kenneth Arnoult v. Melissa Webster, DMD
480 P.3d 592
| Alaska | 2020Background
- Arnoult was diagnosed with aggressive periodontal disease by Dr. Webster in Oct 2011 and received conservative treatment through Dec 2012; symptoms worsened despite care.
- In Jan 2013 Arnoult sought a second opinion from Dr. Rogers, who diagnosed a bacterial infection, treated it with antibiotics, and expressed surprise it had not been treated sooner; Arnoult’s symptoms improved thereafter.
- Arnoult reviewed his dental records and in Oct 2013 discovered perceived problems (missing/modified entries) and later (Apr 2015) concluded records had been altered.
- Arnoult filed suit on Oct 6, 2015 alleging dental malpractice (Count I) and falsification of records/punitive damages (Count II).
- Dr. Webster moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; the superior court found Arnoult was on inquiry notice by July 2013, granted summary judgment, and dismissed Count II as dependent on Count I.
Issues
| Issue | Arnoult's Argument | Webster's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the two-year statute of limitations accrue for the malpractice claim (discovery rule/inquiry notice)? | Accrual was delayed by the discovery rule until Oct 2013 when he reviewed records and understood he had a malpractice claim. | Arnoult was on inquiry notice by Jan/July 2013 (after Dr. Rogers’ diagnosis and symptom improvement); limitations therefore expired before suit. | Court held Arnoult was on inquiry notice no later than July 2013; limitations expired and summary judgment was proper. |
| Did Count II (record falsification/punitive damages) stand alone and affect accrual/tolling? | The alleged alterations misled him and were pivotal, so Count II should toll or create a separate accrual date. | Count II is tied to Count I (punitive damages for the malpractice) and does not create a separate accrual date that rescues the malpractice claim. | Court held Count II was dependent on Count I (not pleaded/argued as independent fraud); statute ran with malpractice claim and Count II was dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrell v. Calvin, 403 P.3d 1182 (Alaska 2017) (summary-judgment standard and limits on using summary judgment to decide accrual dates)
- John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024 (Alaska 2002) (inquiry-notice standard for accrual under the discovery rule)
- Cameron v. State, 822 P.2d 1362 (Alaska 1991) (formulation of the discovery rule and tolling where inquiries fail)
- Palmer v. Borg-Warner Corp., 818 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1991) (plaintiff’s duty to investigate and when courts may resolve notice as a matter of law)
- Jackson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 375 P.3d 1166 (Alaska 2016) (treating inquiry-notice timing as a legal question when facts are undisputed)