LORRAINE BELLMAR, Personal Representative v. ROBERT MOORE & Another
253 N.E.3d 1224
Mass.2025Background
- Plaintiff, Lorraine Bellmar, as representative of Harry Bellmar's estate, sued Dr. Robert Moore (primary care physician) and his practice for medical malpractice and wrongful death.
- Decedent was a patient from 2006-2016, had risk factors for cardiac disease (obesity, hypertension, sleep apnea, cholesterol).
- In 2006, the decedent had an abnormal EKG, but Dr. Moore did not follow up with additional cardiac testing throughout ten years of care.
- Decedent died in 2016 from cardiac arrhythmia; plaintiff claims Dr. Moore's failure to provide cardiac follow-up was negligent.
- Plaintiff’s expert opined Dr. Moore repeatedly breached the standard of care at each appointment during the seven years before suit was filed, independent of the 2006 EKG.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on statute of repose grounds; Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the seven-year statute of repose bar claims based solely on negligent acts/omissions more than seven years before suit? | Later failures by Dr. Moore (within 7 years) to provide cardiac care were independent negligent acts, not solely based on 2006 event. | The only actionable negligence was failure to follow up on the 2006 EKG, so claim is time-barred. | Later negligent acts/omissions within the 7-year repose period are actionable and not barred by earlier, out-of-period acts. |
| Is ongoing treatment alone enough to toll the statute of repose? | No, but repeated breaches of care during appointments constitute new, separate negligent acts. | Ongoing care without distinct new negligence does not toll repose; care was continuous from the initial omission. | Ongoing negligent omissions, if independent of barred acts, are actionable if they occur within the repose period. |
| Are there genuine issues of fact that some negligence occurred within the 7-year period before suit? | Dr. Moore repeatedly failed to order indicated cardiac testing at many appointments, regardless of 2006 EKG. | All alleged negligence centers on the 2006 EKG, so no new actionable negligence within repose period. | Genuine issues of material fact exist over whether separate actionable negligence occurred in the repose period; summary judgment reversed. |
| Does prior negligence outside the repose period shield later negligence for the same condition? | No, each later breach is a new “definitely established event,” restart the repose clock for that event. | All negligence regarding the cardiac risk stems from the missed 2006 EKG. | Only claims based solely on barred acts are foreclosed; later negligence not shielded by time-barred breaches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353 (2005) (statute of repose runs from definitely established events, but does not bar later negligent acts)
- McGuinness v. Cotter, 412 Mass. 617 (1992) (defining "definitely established event" as triggering the repose period)
- Parr v. Rosenthal, 475 Mass. 368 (2016) (statute of repose not tolled by continuing treatment doctrine)
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706 (1991) (summary judgment standard: complete failure of proof on an essential element)