*1 OFFERDAHL, Rosemary Sherlock et
al., Appellants, OF MINNESOTA
UNIVERSITY CLINICS, AND
HOSPITALS
Respondent.
No. C4-87-297. Appeals
Court of of Minnesota.
Sept. 28, 1987. Granted Oct.
Review *2 Mackenzie, Hvass, K. using Reed Weisman & the Cu-7 IUD which was inserted on King, Minneapolis, appellants. August 9, 1977, for by Felton, Dr. Patricia a physician resident the University. Hutchinson, Geraghty, C. David clear, entirely record not apparently Paul, O’Laughlin Kenney, respon- & St. for Felton was also the physician who removed dent. the Daikon Shield and recommended the Heard, by considered and decided Cu-7 IUD.
HUSPENI, P.J., and WOZNIAK and later, 9, Nine May 1978, months Of- CRIPPEN, JJ. ferdahl to University went request- and ed that the Cu-7 IUD be removed. Be-
OPINION may cause Offerdahl have pregnant, been the IUD was not removed. She was asked WOZNIAK, Judge. to return week a later when the IUD would Appellants Rosemary and Offer- Steven removed, if results the pregnancy appeal summary judgment dahl from a en- negative. test were Offerdahl was not respondent in University tered favor of pregnant, but she did not return to the (Universi- Hospitals Minnesota and Clinics 28, 1979, University January until when They ty). claim the trial court erred in she was experiencing severe lower abdom- malpractice ruling that their medical action pain. removed, inal The Cu-7 IUD was by two-year is barred statute limita- hospitalized and Offerdahl was for treat- bringing for tions such actions. We re- ment of PID. and verse remand. hospitalization 1979,
Since her in Offer- dahl has continued receive to treatment for FACTS PID, problems problems related to which 1972, January February In or Offerdahl alleges she aggravated by were caused or began using a Daikon Shield intrauterine the insertion the Cu-7 IUD. She has (IUD), placed body device which was in her Nagel, under the care Dr. been Theodore by physician a with affiliated the Univ- physician University. a at the Offerdahl ersity. year About a after the was IUD surgeries has had three to remove scar inserted, hospitalized at the Offerdahl tissue, Fallopian her and left tube and University complaining of lower abdominal ovary during surgery were removed on Oc- pain pelvic which was believed to be due to tober 1981. inflammatory (PID). disease She was medication, treated with but the IUD was Following surgery, this Offerdahl contin- not removed. Nagel fertility ued to see Dr. counsel- ing, which she claims be- On June Offerdahl visited by cause of the conditions caused PID. University requesting that the be re- IUD pregnant Sep- became She moved again experiencing because she was tember her was transferred care to visit, pain. lower abdominal Before this physician hospital another at another had she been to the University on two gave February where she birth a son in other occasions for routine examina- 1984. On com- June Offerdahl tions. After the Daikon Shield IUD was removed, against malpractice menced action inquired Offerdahl about alterna- Clinics,1 Hospitals University alleging tive birth control methods. She agents physician essentially University that that recommended Copper (Cu-7) IUD, assuring had failed to disclose the risks her it associated that was safe and that it the insertion of the IUD would cause none of with problems experiencing she was with that the should never have been in- IUD serted, the Daikon Shield. given history Offerdahl consented to her of PID. Although ty corporate entity the named defendant the Universi- of Minnesota is the of which Clinics, ty Hospitals of Minnesota no such hospital and clinic are a division. entity legal Regents exists. The of the Universi- summary judg- moved for barred statute of limitations are ment, jury. be decided arguing that the suit is barred Id. bringing two-year statute of limitations for agreed gen- parties here have that actions. medical of fact uine issue exists as to Offer- when motion, granted University’s ex- ceased dahl’s treatment and concede an attached memorandum plaining summary judgment if appropriate is not *3 single a Offerdahl had identified because “termi- this case falls within the traditional the of the Cu-7 IUD—as al- act—insertion nation of rule. The issue treatment” sole malpractice, of action ac- leged the cause appeal proper- on is whether the trial court date, August as of that and crued ly applied what has become as the known untimely, Offerdahl’s action was hav- “single exception to the of act” termination years two ing been commenced more than rule. For treatment reasons we discuss the cause of action accrued.
after below, believe the trial court erred we single
applying
exception.
act
the
ISSUE
single
exception
act
the
to
applies
of treatment rule
to a
termination
applying
the trial court err in
the
Did
particular category
al
of cases where the
single
termi-
exception
act
to the traditional
act; (2)
leged
(1)
single
tort consists of:
a
of treatment rule?
nation
precise time; (3)
complete
a
no
at
which
course of
or
continued
treatment can cure
ANALYSIS
alter; (4)
plaintiff
actually
the
is
aware
may
summary judgment
A motion for
be
upon
based;
of the
which
facts
the claim is
depositions,
granted
pleadings,
when the
is,
plaintiff
the
is
of
mal
aware
the
admissions,
interrogatories,
answers to
practice prior to the end of treatment. See
genuine
affidavits show that no
issue of
376,
Fox,
373,
300
220
Murray v.
Minn.
party
fact exists
material
and that either
is
356,
(1974) (explaining Swang
358
N.W.2d
judgment
to
of
entitled
as a matter
law.
306,
Hauser, 288 Minn.
187
v.
180 N.W.2d
Bulluck,
240,
v.
242
Grondahl
318 N.W.2d
(1970)).
these
If
four elements are satis
(Minn.1982).
appeal,
On
court
must
fied, the
of action
the
cause
accrues and
genuine
determine whether
issues of mate-
begins to run
of
the
statute
as
the date of
rial fact exist
and whether the
negligent act.
application
erred
its
law.
of the
Betlach
court relied
Of-
exclusively
The trial
on
Wayzata Condominium,
v.
281 N.W.2d
allegation
single negligent
of a
ferdahl’s
328,
(Minn.1979).
330
We must view the
negligently
act—that
to
she
advised
favorably
party
evidence most
the
excep-
single
use the
IUD. The
act
Cu-7
against
granted.
whom the motion was
tion, however, requires
identify-
more than
Grondahl,
Moreover, re- treatment Offerdahl applying trial court erred in sin- ceived after IUD was removed was gle exception malprac- to this medical to cure and relieve tice The matter is action. remanded for a disease, pelvic inflammatory a disease ap- trial to issue resolve fact of when aggrava- which she caused or pellant’s treatment terminated. presence Al- ted Cu-7 IUD. Reversed and remanded. *4 University though argues Offer- the that PID dahl’s treatment for was different J., CRIPPEN, concurs. prevention from treatment for the of her CRIPPEN, Judge, concurring specially. pregnancy, the affidavits of medical ex- perts parties Offer- from both indicate that position The of the rests dahl’s treatment after the IUD was re- of Rosemary characterization treatment of problems moved was associated with identify an appro- Offerdahl as effort to an using only question the IUD. The raised priate birth control device. That treatment experts’ opinions the is when treatment August ended in 1977. It was in evident injuries University’s for the ceased: the produced prob- 1978 that the treatment had expert complete- states that Offerdahl was lems. 1978 Efforts between ly of injuries cured all related to use of the eliminating consequences aimed of at the the IUD October while Offerdahl’s alleged malpractice, toll do not the statute expert permanently states that Offerdahl is Esser, 178 of limitations. See Schmitt v. recurring risk for of inflam- bouts (“It 82, 84, (1929) Minn. 226 197 N.W. matory presence disease caused the of that, single is true if there be act of IUD. malpractice, subsequent time and effort remedy merely or cure act that could experts’ clearly statements indicate running statute.”) toll the of the being that Offerdahl was for medi- treated problems cal associated with by appel- This the case is invited view of was, turn, IUD. The IUD recommended complaint. Although complaint lants’ part as of the treatment Offerdahl was early Rose- identifies treatment contacts of receiving prevention pregnancy. for the of mary with of the Universi- Offerdahl staff The supreme court has stated that Minnesota, ty negligence of it that whole, treatment should viewed as a of of singularly the form insertion was “and if there therein occurred August intrauterine device in an begins the statute of to run limitations be- granted summary judgment when the treatment ceases.” Schmitt appellants’ of cause of this statement Esser, Minn. 197 178 226 N.W. claim, concluding appellants that had iden- (1929). act, Copper of single tified “a insertion IUD, alleged of mal- 7 as the act medical single exception inappli is practice.” cable here where the facts some show that thing effect a if the treat- more remained to be done to Another result is reached dif- cure ment of is somewhat Offerdahl’s treatment follow Offerdahl viewed ing Copper ferently. of IUD In June removal before inserted, of recovery. essential to her full Accord 7 IUD was a course treatment ingly, began pelvic in- governed by symptoms this case is tradi to deal with of this flammatory tional rule. disease. The initiation of termination treatment appellants’ com- question When is stated in treatment ceases treatment plamt. It is evident that there was a close
relationship this treatment between and the identify
effort an intrauterine device
that would not cause further
the disease. This treatment involved con-
tinuing 1981, ending care between procedures. surgical Fertility
in several beginning in
treatment also overcoming consequences
aimed at
disease Offerdahl In had suffered. treatment, appellants allege
course act,
that one the identification and insertion device, negli-
of a birth control involved viewed,
gence. single negli- So act of
gence part long of a course of treatment ended years less than two before this
action was commenced. permits record here the view that negligence
this case involves act of six-year the course of a series con-
tacts to treat inflamma-
tory appropriate It light disease. majority opinion authorities cited in the appellants’
to conclude that cause action following
accrued the termination of this by University
course of treatment staff. exception application has no involving
in a situation such a continuous
course of treatment. Marriage
In re the of Bette L.
BLATTNER, Petitioner,
Appellant, BLATTNER, Respondent.
Karl William
No. C3-86-2208. Appeals
Court of of Minnesota.
Sept.