Lead
Thе trial court, pursuant to the jury’s verdict, dismissed Patricia Barry’s malpractice action against Daniel G. Bohi, a physician practicing as an obstetrician and gynecologist. She assigns as error the trial сourt’s (1) determination as a matter of law that Dr. Bohi was a health care provider qualified under the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-2801 et seq. (Reissue 1984), when her cause of action аrose, and (2) consequent receipt into evidence, pursuant to the act, of the written opinion of the medical review panel that Dr. Bohi “met the applicable standard of care required under the circumstances.” We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The act provides a method whereby health care providers, such as physicians, may limit their malpractice liability with respеct to patients who have elected not to remove themselves from its operation. §§ 44-2821, 44-2824; Prendergast v. Nelson,
In order to receive the protection of the act, the provider must file with the director of the Department of Insurance proof of certain financial responsibility and pay the surcharges levied under the act. §§ 44-2824, 44-2827, 44-2829 through 44-2831.
Dr. Bohi first qualified under the act on September 10,1976, both individually and as a member of the partnership with which he then practiced. On February 14, 1978, Dr. Bohi left that partnership and became assоciated with a professional corporation. Thereafter, the director of the Department of Insurance continued to receive proof of Dr. Bohi’s financial responsibility; howevеr, Dr. Bohi neglected to pay the surcharges levied under the act for the period from September 10,1978, to February 7,1979, on and after which date everyone agrees Dr. Bohi again qualified under the act.
Mrs. Barry first consulted Dr. Bohi on May 5, 1978, concerning changes she had noticed in her right breast over a period of several years. Dr. Bohi, among other
Mrs. Barry returned to Dr. Bohi on November 10, 1978, complaining that her breast was still hard. Dr. Bohi noticed a change in the breast from the time of his earlier examination and ordеred a roentgenogram of the breast, more specifically known as a mammogram. The mammogram was reported as revealing no evidence of malignant disease.
On December 26, 1978, Mrs. Barry cоnsulted Dr. Bohi a third time. On this occasion Dr. Bohi referred her to a surgeon who saw her on the following day. While the surgeon’s examination revealed no definite mass in the breast, he nonetheless, in consultation with another physician, decided that because of its firmness a biopsy should be performed.
The biopsy, performed on January 4, 1979, revealed the presence of metastatic carcinoma in thе breast and the surrounding lymph nodes. The breast was then removed.
Mrs. Barry instituted this suit on November 30, 1979. Her petition alleges that Dr. Bohi was negligent “on or after May 5, 1978,” in failing to conduct a thorough physical examination, in failing to diagnose the cancer, in failing to order a biopsy, and in failing to refer her to another physician or to advise her to seek additional medical attention. There is evidence that the cancer existed at the time of Dr. Bohi’s initial examination. It is Mrs. Barry’s thesis that she has been damaged because the delay in correctly diagnosing her condition substantially reduces her chances of recovery.
Prendergast v. Nelson, supra, holds that a cause of action arising while the patient and provider are subject to the act is to be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of the act.
The trial cоurt concluded that Mrs. Barry’s cause of action arose when Dr. Bohi first examined her and failed to diagnose the then existing cancer, May 5, 1978, on which date he was qualified under the act. In accordance with that ruling the trial court, over Mrs. Barry’s objection, received the aforesaid written opinion of the panel into evidence.
Mrs. Barry argues that her cause of action arose either when Dr. Bohi last examined her, December 26, 1978, or on January 4, 1979, when the biopsy was performed and she should have first discovered that Dr. Bohi failed to properly diagnose her condition. She contends that as Dr. Bohi wаs not qualified under the act on either of those dates, the trial court erred in receiving the panel’s written opinion.
We have held that in medical malpractice cases a period of limitаtions or repose begins to run when the treatment rendered after and relating to the act or omission complained of is completed. Smith v. Dewey,
This, however, is not a period of limitations or reposе case, for suit was instituted well within 2 years of Mrs. Barry’s last visit to Dr. Bohi. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222 (Reissue 1979). The question presented, therefore, is not when Mrs. Barry’s cause of action accrued for the purpose of determining whethеr it is barred by a period of limitations or repose but, rather, when did Mrs. Barry’s cause of action arise for the purpose of determining whether the panel’s written opinion is admissible in evidence.
The questiоn appears to be one of first impression. We are not, however, entirely without guidance in formulating an answer. Williams v. Elias, supra, while stating that diagnosis is inseparable from treatment, nonetheless recognized that а physician has the right to change the diagnosis during treatment and that it is a physician’s duty to diagnose a patient’s condition and treat it “in the manner usually done by physicians in his locality.” Id. at 662,
We have held that a cаuse of action “accrues” so as to begin the running of a period of limitations when a legal right has been violated, as a consequence of which
Thus, we conclude that while a medical malpractice action accrues for limitations and repose purposes when the treatment rendered after and relating to the act or omission complained of is completed, such an action arises, for the purpose of determining the admissibility into evidеnce of the written opinion rendered by the medical review panel, upon the occurrence of the act or omission of which complaint is made.
In the case presently before us, thеn, Mrs. Barry had a right to institute and maintain suit, assuming she sustained damages, each time Dr. Bohi allegedly failed to use the requisite standard of care in making his diagnoses; that is, on May 5, 1978, November 10, 1978, and December 26, 1978. Thus, while the written оpinion of the medical review panel was properly admitted into evidence for the cause arising as a result of the May 5, 1978, visit, it was improperly admitted for the causes arising from the November 10 and December 26,1978, visits.
Dr. Bohi observes, however, that there was evidence independent of the panel’s written opinion that he had at all times met the requisite standard of care. He correctly argues that, generally, if properly admitted evidence exists to establish that which improperly admitted evidence also establishes, the error in receiving the inadmissible evidence is harmless and that harmless еrror does not form a basis for the reversal of a judgment. State v. Whitmore, ante p. 450,
Finally, Dr. Bohi argues that since Mrs. Barry chose to participate in the selection of the panel and submitted to the panel’s review, she is estoрped from objecting to the receipt into evidence of the panel’s written opinion. See, American Motors Sales Corp. v. Perkins,
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
This is a continuing course of treatment case arising out of an alleged failure to properly diagnose the plaintiff’s illness. There is but one cause of action, which, under the facts in this case, accrued on May 5, 1978. Since the defendant was qualified on that date, the opinion of the medical review panel concerning the entire course of treatment is admissible.