Wyckoff v. Mogollon Health Alliance
307 P.3d 1015
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background:
- Wyckoff worked at a hospital owned by Mogollon and experienced recurring illness that worsened during the workweek and improved on weekends; she observed a pervasive black substance she believed to be mold.
- She relocated to another office in the same building without relief, conducted an air-quality (petri-dish) test, reported unsafe conditions to her employer, and left employment on February 1, 2008.
- Wyckoff sued Mogollon (premises liability/negligence); a default judgment for $650,000 was entered after Mogollon failed to answer timely; the court later set aside the default judgment and transferred the case to Gila County.
- Mogollon moved for summary judgment in Gila County, arguing Wyckoff’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- Wyckoff appealed, challenging both the vacation of the default judgment and the grant of summary judgment based on limitations; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over order vacating default judgment | Court erred in setting aside the default judgment | Order setting aside default judgment not separately appealable but is reviewable as part of final judgment | Court had jurisdiction to review the default-vacatur issues insofar as they related to the final summary-judgment disposition and considered them accordingly |
| Abatement for untimely service | Action abated by failure to serve timely | Abatement defense bars the action | Abatement waived because defendant raised it for first time on appeal; trial court did not dismiss on that ground |
| Vacating default judgment — void vs. voidable; Rule 55(c)/60(c) relief | Court erred in finding the judgment void and in granting relief | Judgment was void for lack of effective service/defect; vacatur appropriate | Plaintiff waived argument that judgment was merely voidable by failing to raise it below; appellate review for abuse of discretion upholds vacatur as litigated |
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule accrual | Accrual deferred until medical diagnosis confirmed mold as cause (so complaint timely) | Accrual occurred no later than Wyckoff’s last day of employment (Feb 1, 2008); complaint filed Feb 1, 2010 is untimely | Accrual occurred before Wyckoff left employment because she experienced symptoms, knew mold was present, suspected causation, and even conducted tests; summary judgment on limitations affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Acosta v. Phoenix Indemnity Ins. Co., 214 Ariz. 380, 153 P.3d 401 (App. 2007) (summary-judgment review standards and viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Sanders v. Cobble, 154 Ariz. 474, 744 P.2d 1 (1987) (order setting aside default judgment is generally appealable)
- Logerquist v. Danforth, 188 Ariz. 16, 932 P.2d 281 (App. 1996) (de novo review of statute-of-limitations summary judgment and application of discovery rule)
- Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 955 P.2d 951 (1998) (discovery rule accrual—plaintiff knows or should know cause of injury and underlying facts)
- Gerke v. Romero, 237 P.3d 111 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (toxic-exposure accrual occurs when plaintiff has symptoms, knows of exposure, and knows exposure can be hazardous)