Shonda Ambers-Phillips and Richard Phillips II v. SSM DePaul Health Center, 2015 Mo. LEXIS 31

Background

In 1999 Shonda Ambers-Phillips underwent surgery at SSM DePaul; she alleges four foreign objects were left in her abdomen during that operation.
She discovered the objects nearly 14 years later (June 2013) and sued SSM DePaul in November 2013; suit was within two years of discovery but more than 10 years after the alleged negligence.
Section 516.105 (Mo.) contains a discovery rule for foreign-object medical malpractice claims but also a 10-year statute of repose measured from the negligent act.
Defendant moved to dismiss as time-barred by the 10-year repose; the trial court dismissed with prejudice.
The Phillipses argued equitable tolling should postpone the 10-year repose until discovery and alternatively that the repose violated Missouri constitutional protections (open courts, equal protection, due process, and prohibition on special/local laws).
The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding statutes of repose are not equitably tolled and that §516.105’s repose is constitutional under rational-basis review; one justice dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 10‑year statute of repose in §516.105 may be equitably tolled until discovery of a foreign object	Tolling is equitable and should apply because discovery was practically impossible until 2013, so repose should be paused	Statutes of repose begin at the tortious act and, unlike statutes of limitations, are not subject to equitable tolling; legislature set an absolute 10‑year limit	Repose is not subject to equitable tolling; §516.105 bars the claim filed 14 years after the act
Whether §516.105’s repose violates Missouri’s open courts guarantee	Open courts require access to a remedy for injuries; extinguishing claims before discovery denies that remedy	Open courts protect recognized causes of action; a statute of repose extinguishes the cause before it accrues, so open courts does not apply	Open courts inapplicable because the cause of action never vested before repose; no violation
Whether repose violates equal protection or is a forbidden special/local law	Repose discriminates against those less able to discover injuries (poor, elderly, disabled); it targets foreign-object claimants	Medical-malpractice claimants are not a suspect class; repose is a rational legislative balance and applies uniformly to a defined class	Rational-basis applies; §516.105 is rationally related to legitimate interests and is not an invalid special law
Whether the repose violates due process by divesting a vested property interest in a cause of action	A person has a vested property interest in a cause of action; statute that extinguishes it before discovery deprives property without due process	Statutes of repose extinguish the cause before accrual so no vested right ever arises; no due process violation	No due process violation because the repose prevents accrual and thus no vested cause of action existed

Key Cases Cited

Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. 1968) (rejected tolling of limitations for undiscovered foreign object)
Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. banc 1998) (recognizing §516.105 discovery rule for foreign-object cases)
Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1991) (explaining difference between statute of limitations and statute of repose; upholding 10‑year repose)
Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 437 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. banc 2014) (discussing equitable tolling as applied to statutes of limitations)
Adams ex rel. Adams v. Children’s Mercy Hosp., 832 S.W.2d 898 (Mo. banc 1992) (rejecting argument that open courts guarantees unlimited time to sue for malpractice)
Batek v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 920 S.W.2d 895 (Mo. banc 1996) (rejecting claim that malpractice plaintiffs constitute a suspect class)
CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (U.S. 2014) (explaining that statutes of repose generally may not be tolled and serve defendant‑finality interests)