State ex rel. Goldsworthy v. Kanatzar
543 S.W.3d 582
| Mo. | 2018Background
- Michael Lang died on December 7, 2009; wrongful-death claims accrue at death and are subject to a three-year statute of limitations under § 537.100.
- Lang's children filed a timely wrongful-death suit on December 21, 2010 (the only suit filed within the three-year limitations period) and voluntarily dismissed it on March 22, 2013.
- Using § 537.100’s savings provision, plaintiffs filed a second action on March 19, 2014 (within one year of the first nonsuit); the second action was dismissed without prejudice on December 29, 2014 for failure to file a required health-care affidavit under § 538.225.
- Plaintiffs filed a third wrongful-death action on December 1, 2015 (more than one year after the first nonsuit but within one year of the second nonsuit).
- Defendants (the doctors) moved to dismiss the third suit as time-barred under § 537.100; the circuit court denied the motion, and the doctors sought a writ of prohibition from the Missouri Supreme Court.
- The Missouri Supreme Court granted a preliminary writ and, after briefing, made it permanent, holding the third action time-barred and ordering dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 537.100’s savings provision permits repeated one-year refilings after successive nonsuits (i.e., a new one-year period after a nonsuit of an action filed within the savings period). | Lang: The savings clause and phrase “from time to time” allow successive refilings within one year after each nonsuit. | Doctors: The savings clause applies only to an action that was commenced within the original three-year limitations period; it does not create successive one-year grace periods. | The savings provision grants a single one-year period following the nonsuit of an action filed within the original limitations period; it does not permit additional one-year periods after a nonsuit of an action filed within the savings period. The third suit was time-barred. |
| Whether the text (“any such action”) limits the savings provision to actions filed within the original limitations period. | Lang: The statutory wording can be read to allow multiple invocations of the savings period. | Doctors: “Any such action” refers to actions previously specified (i.e., those commenced within the time prescribed) and thus limits the savings to that class. | The Court interprets “any such action” as referencing actions commenced within the original limitations period and rejects the plaintiffs’ broader reading. |
| Whether interpreting § 537.100 as limiting the savings period violates Missouri constitutional guarantees (open courts, jury trial, prohibition on special laws) because the second dismissal under § 538.225 effectively bars plaintiffs. | Lang: Limiting the savings provision converts a dismissal without prejudice under § 538.225 into a de facto permanent bar, violating open courts, jury trial, and anti–special-law provisions. | Doctors: The constitutional claims improperly target § 538.225 and do not invalidate § 537.100’s savings rule; dismissal without prejudice does not guarantee refiling if otherwise time-barred. | Court: Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges fail; § 537.100’s limitation does not arbitrarily deny access, nor convert § 538.225 dismissals into unconstitutional bars. |
| Whether prohibition is the proper remedy to prevent continued proceedings on a time-barred claim. | Lang: Opposed — argued merits and constitutionality to avoid dismissal. | Doctors: Prohibition is appropriate where a claim is barred by limitations and the relator is entitled to dismissal as a matter of law. | Prohibition is appropriate and warranted; the writ was made permanent to require dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boland v. St. Luke's Health Sys., 471 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. banc 2015) (cause of action for wrongful death accrues at death)
- Cady v. Harlan, 442 S.W.2d 517 (Mo. 1969) (savings statute provides only one one-year grace period following nonsuit of action filed within original limitations)
- State ex rel. Holzum v. [Court], 342 S.W.3d 313 (Mo. banc 2011) (writ of prohibition proper to prevent lower court from proceeding on time-barred claims)
- State ex rel. Union Elec. Co. v. Dolan, 256 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. banc 2008) (prohibition lies when plaintiff’s petition states no viable theory and relator is entitled to dismissal as a matter of law)
- Williams v. S. Union Co., 364 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. App. 2011) (definition and effect of a nonsuit/dismissal without prejudice)