Winn v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center
128 Nev. 246
Nev.2012Background
- Winn, guardian for Sedona Winn, sues Sunrise Hospital and doctors for alleged medical malpractice from Sedona’s Dec 14, 2006 heart surgery.
- Sedona’s injury occurred no later than Dec 15, 2006; discovery and records disclosure followed in 2007 and 2008, with suit filed Feb 3, 2009.
- NRS 41A.097(2) limits: 3 years from injury or 1 year from discovery, with tolling for concealment under NRS 41A.097(3).
- District court held discovery date was Dec 15, 2006 and granted summary judgment for doctors; Sunrise’s concealment tolling contested.
- Nevada Supreme Court held accrual date is generally a question of fact, here irrefutably Feb 14, 2007; remanded on Sunrise tolling issue and affirmed doctors’ dismissal on tolling grounds.
- Court-vacated summary judgment for Sunrise; concluded one defendant’s concealment cannot toll the statute as to defendants who did not conceal; doctors’ claims time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date for subsection 2 discovery period | Winn argues discovery date was later than 12/15/2006; factual question. | Sunrise contends discovery occurred earlier or as found by district court. | Accrual is a factual question except when irrefutably proven; here Feb 14, 2007 is the irrefutable discovery date. |
| Meaning and evidence of concealment under subsection 3 | Sunrise concealed information delaying discovery. | Concealment not clearly proven; timing and conduct disputed. | Concealment requires intentional withholding of material information hindering timely action; factual issues remain for Sunrise. |
| Two-prong tolling test under subsection 2 and 3 | Winn should toll discovery due to Sunrise’s concealment affecting expert affidavit. | Withholding must be material and hinder a reasonably diligent plaintiff. | Winn must prove intentional withholding and material hindrance; remand for Sunrise-related tolling proceedings. |
| Imputing concealment to non-concealing defendants (doctors) | Concealment by Sunrise tolls all defendants. | Tolling applies only to the particular defendant who concealed. | One defendant’s concealment cannot toll the statute as to others who played no role; doctors’ claims time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. Litton, 99 Nev. 723 (1983) (discovery when plaintiff should know facts putting on inquiry notice)
- Bemis v. Estate of Bemis, 114 Nev. 1021 (1998) (irrefutable evidence required for as a matter of law discovery date)
- Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724 (2005) (de novo review of summary judgments on statute issues)
- Day v. Zubel, 112 Nev. 972 (1996) (accrual date is a question of law only if facts are uncontroverted)
- Sheriff v. Burcham, 124 Nev. 1247 (2008) (statutes tolling; defendant-specific tolling interpretation)
- Karcher Firestopping v. Meadow Valley Contr., 125 Nev. 111 (2009) (plain language of statute governs tolling interpretation)