 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
kline v. McGuire12/13/2000
to the surgery.
Defendants cite Langner v. Simpson, 533 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 1995), to support the district court's finding plaintiffs' awareness of Richard's symptoms soon after discharge from the hospital was sufficient to trigger the commencement of the period of limitations. In Langner, the plaintiffs sued mental health care providers in September 1991, claiming Mrs. Langner suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of inappropriate statements made to her by a psychiatrist during a 1988 hospitalization. Mrs. Langner admitted she "knew something was wrong" immediately after the hospitalization, but claimed she did not realize the "extent" of the abuse until she underwent further mental health treatment in March 1991. The district court concluded the plaintiff's' claims were barred by section 614.1(9) and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Langner, 533 N.W.2d at 524. In affirming the district court's decision, our supreme court observed:
the statute begins to run when a person gains knowledge sufficient to put the person on inquiry. On that date, the person is charged with knowledge of facts that would have been disclosed by a reasonably diligent investigation. Moreover, once a person is aware that a problem exists, the person has a duty to investigate even though the person may not have knowledge of the nature of the problem that caused the injury . Id. at 518 (emphasis added).
The court concluded a reasonable person could only conclude Mrs. Langner "was aware [the psychiatrist's] statements were inappropriate and that they caused her emotional and mental stress" in 1988. Id. The court further noted it was of no moment Mrs. Langner did not know medically why and how the psychiatrist's statements affected her. Id. " he law does not require such knowledge; the law only requires that [plaintiff] be aware that a problem exists." Id.
Plaintiffs contend Langner does not mandate summary judgment in this case. They assert a fact question remains as to whether they should have known prior to June 2, 1996, the symptoms of depression and personality change were related to the medical treatment provided by the defendants. Unlike the plaintiffs in Langner, plaintiffs contend they had no reason to immediately know of the injury caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants, and could not have known of the brain lesions until the diagnostic procedure documented them in June of 1997. Defendants contend plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge prior to June 2, 1996, to put them on inquiry notice as a matter of law. See Franzen v. Deere & Co., 377 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa 1985).
Although section 614.1(9) expressly focuses on when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the "injury," Langner suggests a plaintiff's awareness of a "problem" will cause the limitation period to begin to run. Langner, 533 N.W.2d at 518. In McClendon v. Beck, 569 N.W.2d 382, 386 (Iowa 1997), our supreme court affirmed the district court's finding a plaintiff's constant low back pain following surgery was sufficient to put her on notice of the injury for which she sought compensation. We understand McClendon to require us to hold knowledge of mere symptoms, such as depression and personality change, is knowledge of "a problem" sufficient to put the plaintiff on inquiry notice. See McClendon, 569 N.W.2d at 386.
In the present case, the summary judgment record shows plaintiffs were informed immediately after surgery Richard had stopped breathing and had been resuscitated. Plaintiffs were aware of Richard's symptoms soon after he was released from the hospital in June of 1995. Even if Richard did not believe anything was wrong with him, he was told of the probl
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|