WATKINS v. CENTRAL STATE GRIFFIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
2016 OK 71
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Jane Doe (19, five months pregnant) admitted to Griffin Memorial Hospital on March 19, 2011; nurse Nicholas Schiavo performed a private pelvic exam without a documented physician order and no female witness present.
- Jane Doe filed an in-hospital complaint; her mother, Jackie Watkins, followed up and was told an investigation was occurring and that the exam was performed pursuant to physician order.
- ODMHSAS Office of Inspector General (OIG) found Schiavo violated standards; Schiavo was terminated and later lost his nursing license; OIG records showed no written physician order and questioned whether a physician had authorized the exam.
- A Cleveland County criminal investigation relied on statements (from Schiavo and Dr. Mudassir) that a verbal physician order had been given; the DA declined prosecution based on that account. Watkins was again told there was physician direction for the exam.
- Watkins was appointed guardian in May 2012 and then discovered medical records showing no physician order or note and that Schiavo had been terminated for a sexual incident; she filed GTCA notice in August 2012 and suit in February 2013 (more than one year after the March 2011 admission).
- Depositions later revealed Schiavo invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly when asked whether he lied to investigators or conspired with Mudassir, raising questions of possible active concealment or fraud by hospital employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GTCA one-year limitations period was tolled by defendants' alleged concealment | Watkins: defendants misled her and Jane Doe about investigation results and physician orders, so statute didn't begin to run until she discovered true facts after becoming guardian | Defendants: plaintiff knew or should have known facts during or immediately after admission; discovery rule does not toll GTCA here | Court: Tolling/estoppel and discovery-rule trigger are questions of fact; summary judgment improper — remand for fact finding |
| Whether estoppel can bar the State from asserting GTCA time bar due to misleading conduct | Watkins: estoppel applies because defendants made false/misleading statements and concealed facts, inducing delay | Defendants: any representations by law enforcement or prosecutors absolve state from liability for delayed discovery; no estoppel | Court: Estoppel may apply under these facts; material issues of deception exist for the trier of fact |
| Whether the discovery rule determines when limitations began to run | Watkins: limitations tolled until a reasonably diligent person could discover claim (after guardian appointment and records review) | Defendants: facts available at admission should have put plaintiff on notice | Court: When plaintiff knew or should have known is a factual question for the trier of fact |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Watkins: disputed material facts (concealment, representations, timing of knowledge) preclude summary judgment | Defendants: undisputed facts show plaintiff had sufficient information within one year | Court: Reversed summary judgment; remanded because genuine factual disputes exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarvis v. City of Stillwater, 732 P.2d 470 (Okla. 1987) (estoppel can bar time-bar defense when defendant engaged in false, fraudulent, or misleading conduct that induced delay)
- Woods v. Prestwick House, Inc., 247 P.3d 1183 (Okla. 2011) (discovery rule tolls limitations until plaintiff knows or reasonably should know sufficient facts to bring claim)
- Wing v. Lorton, 261 P.3d 1122 (Okla. 2011) (determination of when plaintiff possessed sufficient information to trigger limitations is a question of fact)
- Smith v. City of Stillwater, 328 P.3d 1192 (Okla. 2014) (GTCA provides exclusive remedy and narrowly prescribes notice and time frame for claims)
- Reirdon v. Wilburton Bd. of Ed., 611 P.2d 239 (Okla. 1980) (policy purposes of GTCA notice requirement)
- Burdick v. Independent School Dist., 702 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1985) (estoppel against government may be appropriate to further public policy)
- Fargo v. Hays-Kuehn, 352 P.3d 1223 (Okla. 2015) (summary judgment standards; deny when material facts disputed)
- Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1961) (limitations statutes protect defendants from stale claims due to plaintiff negligence)