 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Uelk v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital12/26/2000
James C. Uelk (Uelk) appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing Uelk's petition. Uelk asserts the trial court erred in granting Barnes-Jewish Hospital (Barnes) and Washington University Medical Center's (Washington University) motions to dismiss. We transfer to the Supreme Court.
Uelk brought suit against Barnes, Washington University, and two physicians, Drs. Sterling and Hicks, for alleged medical malpractice and against Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. for product liability and negligence. Uelk claimed Barnes was negligent in the performance of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure on October 7, 1994. Even though not pled, the parties agree he returned to the hospital numerous times for treatment including a brief hospital stay and saw many doctors. There were no allegations the individual doctors named treated Uelk on his return visits to the hospital. Dr. Hicks asserted he had no involvement with Uelk after April 1995. We further note there is no primary care physician alleged directing Uelk's treatment during his subsequent hospital visits. The petition alleging medical malpractice was filed on March 30, 1999, more than four years after the procedure. Barnes and Washington University filed motions to dismiss asserting that Uelk's claims were time-barred pursuant to Section 516.105, RSMo 1994, because more than two years had elapsed from the time of the procedure in October 1994, and because the continuing care exception to the statute does not apply to health care entities. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss. The trial court also found the claims against the individual doctors were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted Uelk leave to amend as to the individual doctors in order to state facts supporting the continuing care exception and Uelk failed to amend. This appeal follows.
When reviewing the trial court's dismissal of a petition, this court determines if the facts pleaded and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom state any ground for relief. Wheelehan v. Ducker, 996 S.W.2d 780, 781 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). We treat all facts alleged as true and construe allegations liberally and favorably to the plaintiff. Id. If the facts pleaded and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom show any ground for relief, then the petition should not be dismissed. Loven v. Davis, 783 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990). Dismissal will be affirmed if it can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion, regardless of whether the trial court relied on that ground. Shores v. Express Lending Services, Inc. 998 S.W.2d 122, 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).
In his sole point, Uelk contends that his delay in filing suit should be excused under the continuing care exception to the statute of limitations, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing his claim. We disagree. Uelk argues the subsequent visits to the hospital qualifies as "continuing care" so as to toll the statute of limitations as to the hospital.
All actions against health care providers for damages for malpractice related to health care must be brought within two years from the date of occurrence of the act on which the claim is based. Section 516.105; RCA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sanborn, 918 S.W.2d 893, 898 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996). However, the continuing care exception provides that the statute of limitations begins to run only when the defendant physician ceases to treat the injury caused by the alleged act of negligence. Brickey v. Concerned Care of Midwest, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 592, 597 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Missouri courts have consistently held that this exception applies only to individual physicians, and not to hospitals or other health
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|