377 P.3d 124
Okla.2016Background
- Jane Doe, a 19-year-old pregnant inpatient at Griffin Memorial Hospital, received a pelvic exam on March 19, 2011, performed by RN Nicholas Schiavo alone, without a female present and with no written physician order documented.
- Jane Doe filed an in-hospital grievance; Watkins (her mother) knew of the grievance and was told Griffin was investigating and that the exam was performed pursuant to physician order.
- ODMHSAS OIG concluded Schiavo violated patient-rights rules; Schiavo was terminated and later lost his nursing license after Peer Program default findings.
- Criminal investigators, relying on statements from hospital employees (including Dr. Mudassir), closed the criminal inquiry after being told a physician had ordered the exam. Watkins was told there was no wrongdoing.
- Watkins was appointed guardian in May 2012 and then discovered (from medical records) there was no written physician order, no physician note, and that Schiavo had been terminated for a sexual incident; she filed GTCA notice August 2012 and suit February 2013.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment as time-barred under the GTCA one-year limitation; lower courts granted/affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GTCA one-year limitation is tolled/defeated by estoppel where state employees concealed or misled about critical facts | Watkins: alleged affirmative concealment/misleading statements by Griffin/agents induced delay; estoppel should bar limitations defense | Defendants: plaintiff knew or should have known facts by discharge; no basis to toll or apply estoppel | Court: estoppel may apply under these facts; whether concealment occurred is a fact question for the trier of fact |
| Whether the discovery rule delays accrual of GTCA claims until a plaintiff reasonably should have known enough to sue | Watkins: limitations did not begin to run until she (as guardian) discovered absence of physician order and termination | Defendants: plaintiff knew or in reasonable diligence should have known sufficient facts at time of admission/discharge | Court: accrual under discovery rule is a question of fact; disputed facts preclude summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on statute-of-limitations grounds | Watkins: disputed material facts (deception, investigatory statements, mental/cognitive condition of Doe) defeat summary judgment | Defendants: facts undisputed; Watkins had enough info and delay was inexcusable | Court: material factual disputes exist; summary judgment improper; reverse and remand |
| Whether tolling for legal disability under 12 O.S. §96 applies | Watkins: Doe’s cognitive impairment/mental instability supports tolling | Defendants: argued not applicable; lower courts decided against plaintiff | Court: did not decide §96 issue because factual questions on estoppel/discovery rule dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarvis v. City of Stillwater, 732 P.2d 470 (Okla. 1987) (estoppel categories that can bar a statute-of-limitations defense against the government)
- Woods v. Prestwick House, Inc., 247 P.3d 1183 (Okla. 2011) (application of the discovery rule to toll accrual of tort claims)
- Wing v. Lorton, 261 P.3d 1122 (Okla. 2011) (when a plaintiff knew or should have known is a question of fact for the trier of fact)
- Smith v. City of Stillwater, 328 P.3d 1192 (Okla. 2014) (GTCA provides exclusive remedy; requirements and time frames are strictly construed)
- Reirdon v. Wilburton Bd. of Ed., 611 P.2d 239 (Okla. 1980) (purposes of GTCA notice provisions)
- Fargo v. Hays-Kuehn, 352 P.3d 1223 (Okla. 2015) (summary judgment standard; not favored where material facts disputed)
- Seitz v. Jones, 370 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1961) (policy behind statutes of limitations)
- Burdick v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 52, 702 P.2d 48 (Okla. 1985) (estoppel against the state where public policy favors it)