Schroeder v. Weighall
316 P.3d 482
Wash.2014Background
- At age 9 (2001) Jaryd Schroeder had an MRI read as normal by Dr. Weighall; a later MRI at age 17 (2009) showed an Arnold‑Chiari malformation that the radiologist said was present in 2001.
- Schroeder filed medical malpractice suit on January 13, 2011, the day before his 19th birthday.
- RCW 4.16.350 sets medical‑malpractice limitations (three years from act or one year from discovery) and imputes parent/guardian knowledge; RCW 4.16.190 generally tolls statutes during minority but subsection (2) removes tolling for minors in medical‑malpractice claims.
- Because RCW 4.16.190(2) eliminated minority tolling for medical malpractice, Schroeder’s suit fell outside the one‑year discovery period and was dismissed on summary judgment.
- Schroeder appealed, arguing RCW 4.16.190(2) violated article I, section 12 (and section 10) of the Washington Constitution; the Supreme Court reviewed the statute’s constitutionality de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 4.16.190(2) grants an unconstitutional "privilege" or "immunity" in violation of art. I, §12 | Schroeder: statute removes a minor’s ability to pursue a common‑law medical malpractice action (a state‑citizenship privilege) and lacks a reasonable ground | Respondents: statute merely narrows tolling exceptions; legislature reasonably targeted minors in medical malpractice to reduce stale claims and insurance costs | Majority: RCW 4.16.190(2) confers an immunity that triggers art. I, §12 heightened review and violates art. I, §12 because no reasonable ground supports the distinction; statute invalidated as applied to Schroeder |
| Whether the statute is justified by legitimate objectives (insurance costs / stale claims) and thus passes state equal protection or rational‑basis review | Schroeder: legislative record lacks factual support that eliminating minority tolling materially reduces premiums; distinction arbitrary and burdens vulnerable minors | Respondents: legislature plausibly sought to curb stale, costly malpractice suits; minors are protected by parents/guardians; rational basis supports statute | Majority: the reasonable‑ground test requires factual support (not speculation); record lacks it, so statute fails. Dissent: statute is rationally related to legitimate goals and should be upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitsap County v. Mattress Outlet, 153 Wn.2d 506 (2005) (standard—statutory constitutionality reviewed de novo)
- Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wn.2d 103 (1997) (deference/standards for constitutional review cited)
- Grant County Fire Protection Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002) (recognizing article I, §12 privileges analysis for special‑interest legislation)
- Grant County Fire Protection Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791 (2004) (clarifying when privileges/immunities analysis applies and framing two‑part test)
- DeYoung v. Providence Medical Center, 136 Wn.2d 136 (1998) (struck a medical‑malpractice statute of repose under art. I, §12 and required meaningful factual support for insurance‑cost justifications)
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Med. Ctr., PS, 166 Wn.2d 974 (2009) (characterizing medical malpractice claims as rooted in common law negligence, implicating state‑citizenship remedies)