Sisson v. Lhowe
460 Mass. 705
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Dawn Sisson died of osteosarcoma on March 29, 2007 during the malpractice action.
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Dr. Lhowe and MGP for medical malpractice on February 27, 2006 alleging injury including imminent premature death.
- Dawn died during the suit; on March 28, 2008 plaintiffs amended to add Dawn's administrator and wrongful death claims.
- Defendants moved to exclude the wrongful death claim as time-barred by G. L. c. 260, § 4; the motion was granted and the wrongful death claim dismissed.
- The issue was whether a wrongful death claim may be substituted for a timely filed medical malpractice action where the underlying claims arise from the same conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wrongful death claim is barred by the statute of repose. | Sisson argues the wrongful death claim arises from the same malpractice action and should not be barred. | Defendants contend personal injury and wrongful death are distinct actions with separate repose implications. | Yes, wrongful death may substitute for personal injury if proper conditions are met. |
| Whether personal injury and wrongful death constitute the same action for repose purposes. | Plaintiffs contend the two claims arise from the same facts and thus constitute a single action. | Defendants argue they are distinct statutory causes of action with separate regimes. | They may be the same action for repose if based on the same operative facts. |
| What are the conditions for substituting a wrongful death claim for a timely malpractice claim? | Amendment should be permitted if trial has not commenced, original action filed within repose limits, and liability theories align. | Amendment should not revive a time-barred claim; repose extinguishes the action. | Substitution is allowed if (1) trial has not commenced; (2) original malpractice complaint was timely under limitation/repose; (3) liability allegations overlap. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidler v. E.M. Parker Co., 394 Mass. 534 (Mass. 1985) (loss of consortium linked to same facts; economy concerns)
- Joslyn v. Chang, 445 Mass. 344 (Mass. 2005) (statute of repose purpose and history; exceptions)
- Harlfinger v. Martin, 435 Mass. 38 (Mass. 2001) (legislative intent and cost considerations in repose)
- Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353 (Mass. 2005) (limits on extending repose; relation to stale claims)
- Pobieglo v. Monsanto Co., 402 Mass. 112 (Mass. 1988) (separate still related wrongful death/conscious pain claims; joinder treated as single action)
- Nett v. Bellucci, 437 Mass. 630 (Mass. 2002) (relation back and repose distinctions)
- Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701 (Mass. 1982) (absolute time limit of repose; accrual concepts)
- Joslyn v. Chang, 445 Mass. 344 (Mass. 2005) (repose purpose and legislative intent)