Nobles v. Memorial Hospital of Laramie County
301 P.3d 517
Wyo.2013Background
- Nobles, a Washington resident, alleges medical negligence arising from a staff member pulling on his right arm while he was treated in Wyoming facilities in Dec 2007 to Mar 2008.
- He experienced shoulder pain and dysfunction in the ICU; initial imaging was limited due to claustrophobia, and MRI was pursued later.
- Nobles was diagnosed with a brachial plexus/shoulder injury and underwent ongoing therapy and neurology consultation during hospitalization.
- He was discharged March 15, 2008, with ongoing shoulder/arm issues and instructions to seek continued treatment.
- Nobles submitted a governmental claim March 11, 2010 and Milestone Wyoming Medical Review Panel proceedings followed; the panel authorized suit; he filed June 11, 2010.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Hospital, concluding the claim was time-barred; Nobles appeals, and the Wyoming Supreme Court reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should continuous treatment toll the statute of limitations? | Nobles relies on continuous treatment until discharge, tolling the limit. | Hospital argues no tolling or inapplicable rule applies. | Continuous treatment tolls; reversal |
| Does the single act exception apply in Wyoming, and is it preserved? | There is no Wyoming adoption of the single act exception. | Wyoming should recognize a single act exception to tolling. | Wyoming declines adoption of the single act exception |
| Was summary judgment proper on statute-of-limitations grounds? | Record supports tolling and timely filing within two-year window after discharge. | Two-year limit begins with the act and the claim was filed late. | District court erred; case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Metzger v. Kalke, 709 P.2d 414 (Wyo.1985) (continuous treatment governs start of statute by cessation of treatment)
- Echols v. Keeler, 735 P.2d 730 (Wyo.1987) (limits on continuous treatment; focus on patient-specific course)
- Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667 (Wyo.1988) (continuous treatment applicable in misdiagnosis cases)
- Jauregui v. Memorial Hospital, 111 P.3d 914 (Wyo.2005) (extends continuous treatment to post-surgical treatment linked to initial surgery)
- Ballinger v. Thompson, 118 P.3d 429 (Wyo.2005) (discusses limits of continuous representation in non-medical malpractice)
- Roberts v. Francis, 128 F.3d 647 (8th Cir.1997) (single-act exception limitations in Arkansas/Minnesota context contrasted)
- Doyle v. Kuch, 611 N.W.2d 28 (Minn.App.2000) ( Minnesota single-act exception framework discussed)
- Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.1989) (illustrates single-act exception considerations in Minnesota)
- Jauregui v. Memorial Hospital (Wyoming cross-reference to Minnesota framework), 111 P.3d 914 (Wyo.2005) (Wyoming discussion of single-act exception and continued treatment)