Nicolaou, N. v. Martin, J.
153 A.3d 383
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Nancy Nicolaou developed neurological symptoms after a 2001 tick bite and was treated by various St. Luke’s-affiliated providers between 2001–2008, who ordered multiple Lyme tests that were negative and diagnosed/treated her for multiple sclerosis (MS).
- From July 2009 to February 2010 Nicolaou treated with NP Rita Rhoads, who clinically diagnosed “probable Lyme,” prescribed antibiotics starting July 20, 2009, and recommended an IGeneX test that would provide more definitive bands.
- Nicolaou declined the IGeneX test in July 2009 (citing cost and a desire to see antibiotic response), but began the IGeneX testing on February 1, 2010; IGeneX reported positive results on February 12–13, 2010.
- Nicolaou filed a medical-malpractice suit on February 10, 2012 (more than two years after her last contact with earlier providers), asserting the discovery rule tolled the two-year statute of limitations until the IGeneX confirmation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding reasonable minds could not differ that Nicolaou knew or should have known of the injury and its possible cause by mid-2009 (when Rhoads informed her of a Lyme diagnosis and treated her), so the claim was time-barred.
- The Superior Court (en banc) affirmed, holding that Nicolaou failed to show she exercised reasonable diligence to discover the cause and that the discovery rule did not apply as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Nicolaou's Argument | Appellees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two-year statute of limitations was tolled by the discovery rule | Nicolaou argues she could not reasonably discover the cause of her injury until the IGeneX positive report on Feb 13, 2010 (she lacked objective confirmation and could not afford earlier testing) | Appellees argue Nicolaou knew or reasonably should have known of Lyme as a possible cause by July 2009 when NP Rhoads diagnosed and treated her and recommended IGeneX; Nicolaou voluntarily delayed testing | Held: Summary judgment affirmed — discovery rule does not apply. As a matter of law, reasonable minds could not differ that Nicolaou knew or should have known of the injury and its possible cause by mid-2009, so the claim was time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (seminal articulation of Pennsylvania discovery rule and reasonable-diligence standard)
- Wilson v. El–Daief, 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009) (narrow Pennsylvania approach to accrual and discovery rule; balancing plaintiff diligence and defendant repose)
- Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 15 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2011) (clarifies objective but flexible reasonable-diligence inquiry and when courts may decide discovery as a matter of law)
- Pocono Int’l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1983) (discusses tolling when plaintiff could not ascertain injury and cause despite reasonable diligence)
- Cochran v. GAF Corp., 666 A.2d 245 (Pa. 1995) (confirms courts may find discovery rule inapplicable as a matter of law where plaintiff lacked reasonable diligence)