Molinet v. Kimbrell
356 S.W.3d 407
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Molinet injured Achilles tendon in 2004; initial surgery by Horan and later surgery by Allen; Kimbrell treated him in 2004; Molinet sued health care providers but not Horan or Kimbrell until after designation; Allen designated as responsible third party in 2007, triggering joinder rights under §33.004(e); Molinet joined Horan and Kimbrell within 60 days of designation but more than two years after last treatment; §74.251(a) provides a two-year health care liability limitation period; §74.002(a) provides chapter 74 controls over conflicting law; court of appeals held §74.251(a) is absolute and trumps §33.004(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §74.251(a) conflicts with §33.004(e). | Molinet argues no true conflict; both can operate. | Horan/Kimbrell contend there is a direct conflict; §74.251(a) controls. | Yes, §74.251(a) controls despite §33.004(e). |
| If conflict exists, whether §74.251(a) should prevail under conflict-of-law rules. | §74.251(a) should yield to §33.004(e) only if clearly conflicting. | §74.251(a) must control as the governing health-care statute. | §74.251(a) prevails; it governs despite §33.004(e). |
| Whether §33.004(e) creates an exception to the two-year limitations period. | Molinet seeks a 60-day joinder exception to preserve claims. | Horan/Kimbrell argue no tolling/exception; two-year limit intact. | No exception; §74.251(a) bars the claims against Horan and Kimbrell. |
| What is the role of legislative history in interpreting these provisions? | Legislative history supports §33.004(e) precedence. | Legislative history is not controlling where text is clear. | Legislative history not controlling; text favors §74.251(a). |
| Did the availability of §74.251(b) ten-year repose affect the outcome? | Five-year repose could permit claims post-limitations. | Repose does not create tolling or override the two-year limit. | §74.251(b) does not create an exception to §74.251(a) here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2010) (conflicts resolved by a clear conflict-of-law provision; UCC controls)
- Chilkewitz v. Hyson, 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex.1999) (not tolling; rule 28 substitution does not toll limitations when case not commenced against party)
- Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46 (Tex.2003) (Rule 28 substitution context; commence against party)
- Texas Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex.2010) (plain-language conflict resolution; express conflict provision governs)
- Waters v. Walters?, 307 S.W.3d 292 (Tex.2010) (open courts/ten-year repose discussion; not controlling here)
- Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205 (Tex.1985) (open courts/constitutional considerations in limitations context)
- Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836 (Tex.2001) (fraudulent concealmentException to limitations)
- Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.1983) (fraudulent concealment/open courts doctrine)
- Neagle v. Nelson, 685 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.1985) (constitutional carve-outs to limitations)
- Walters v. Cleveland Reg’l Med. Ctr., 307 S.W.3d 292 (Tex.2010) (ten-year repose analysis related to exceptions to two-year limit)
- In re Collins, 286 S.W.3d 911 (Tex.2009) (general principle on interpreting statutes)