938 N.W.2d 133
N.D.2020Background
- Krystal Krebsbach contracted hepatitis C during a 2013 outbreak while a patient at ManorCare in Minot; plaintiff Mark Krebsbach (her husband and personal representative) sued Trinity Hospitals alleging Trinity’s phlebotomy services (Employee A), drug-diversion, and inadequate supervision caused the infection.
- Krebsbach moved to intervene in a consolidated action against Trinity in September 2016 and filed claims for negligence, fraud/deceit, and violations of the Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices Act.
- Trinity moved to dismiss; a special master dismissed the deceit and consumer-protection claims for failure to plead a duty to disclose or misrepresentations tied to a sale, and granted summary judgment on negligence, concluding the two-year medical-malpractice statute of limitations applied and Krebsbach was on notice more than two years before filing.
- The special master relied on public reports, news articles, and an attorneys’ letter in late 2013–mid 2014 indicating possible Trinity involvement; the master found Krebsbach reasonably should have investigated by September 21, 2014.
- The district court adopted the special master’s rulings; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of two-year malpractice statute vs six-year general negligence statute | Krebsbach: claims are ordinary negligence (selection/supervision) so six-year statute applies | Trinity: claims involve medical services and professional standards, so two-year malpractice statute applies | Two-year malpractice statute applies |
| When statute of limitations began (discovery/notice) | Krebsbach: did not have notice of Trinity’s possible negligence until later; timely filed | Trinity: public reports and attorney communications put Krebsbach on notice before Sept 21, 2014 | Krebsbach was on notice >2 years before filing; claims time-barred |
| Fraud/deceit (suppression of facts) | Krebsbach: Trinity suppressed information about Employee A and drug diversion, inducing reliance | Trinity: complaint fails to allege a duty to disclose or any misrepresentations/inquiries creating such a duty | Deceit claim dismissed for failure to plead duty to disclose |
| Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices Act claim | Krebsbach: misrepresentations relate to phlebotomy services | Trinity: no allegations of misrepresentations made in connection with sale/advertising of services | Claim dismissed — not pleaded as a sale/advertising misrepresentation |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennington v. Cont’l Res., Inc., 932 N.W.2d 897 (N.D. 2019) (summary-judgment standard and review)
- Jilek v. Berger Elec., Inc., 441 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 1989) (distinguishing professions from trades for malpractice statute purposes)
- Beaudoin v. S. Texas Blood & Tissue Ctr., 676 N.W.2d 103 (N.D. 2004) (malpractice defined as professional negligence; scope may extend beyond physicians)
- Sime v. Tvenge Assocs. Architects & Planners, P.C., 488 N.W.2d 606 (N.D. 1992) (the actual nature of the action determines applicable statute of limitations)
- Zettel v. Licht, 518 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1994) (discovery rule for medical-malpractice: plaintiff must know injury, cause, and defendant’s possible negligence)