 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beaman v. Hanson8/28/2002
Francis Beaman appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant in this medical malpractice action. AFFIRMED.
Francis Beaman appeals the district court's summary judgment ruling dismissing his medical malpractice claim against Dr. Glenn Hanson. We affirm.
I. Backgrounds Facts and Proceedings
Dr. Hanson treated Beaman for various ailments from January 1991 until January 1995. On January 30, 1995, Beaman was diagnosed with diabetes by another physician. On October 23, 1998, Beaman sued Dr. Hanson for medical malpractice damages citing Hanson's failure to diagnose and treat him for diabetes while Beaman was his patient.
Dr. Hanson moved for summary judgment, claiming Beaman's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to malpractice actions. He argued that Beaman learned he suffered from diabetes in January 1995 and his lawsuit was filed more than three years later. The district court agreed and entered summary judgment dismissing Beaman's claim, resulting in this appeal.
II. Scope of Review
We review a summary judgment ruling for corrections of errors of law. Howell v. Merritt Co., 585 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Iowa 1998). Under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.981, summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The facts are reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Shriver v. City of Okoboji, 567 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Iowa 1997).
III. Statute of Limitations
Beaman contends that while he was doing research on the subject of diabetes in late 1997 or early 1998, he realized he could have been suffering from the disease prior to his diagnosis on January 30, 1995. He states, "It was not until that time that Plaintiff-Appellant Beaman, discovered through his research that he was undoubtedly suffering from diabetes from 1991 to 1994 . . . ."
Personal injury actions against a physician arising out of patient care are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Iowa Code ยง 614.1(9) (1997). The statute of limitations begins to run "when the patient knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, of the injury for which damages are sought." Langner v. Simpson, 533 N.W.2d 511, 517 (Iowa 1995). The statute of limitations continues to run even if the patient is unaware of the physician's negligence. Id.
The ultimate question is when a plaintiff gained knowledge of his injury sufficient to put him on inquiry notice to investigate further. McClendon v. Beck, 569 N.W.2d 382, 385 (Iowa 1997). Our supreme court has stated:
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 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. Seen in this light, " he period of limitations is the outer time limit for making the investigation and bringing the action." Langner, 533 N.W.2d at 518 (citing Sparks v. Metalcraft, Inc., 408 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa 1987)).
The evidence in this case shows Beaman knew he suffered from diabetes in January 1995. This knowledge was sufficient to place him on notice of inquiry and trigger the running of the statute of limitations. Because Beaman's lawsuit against Dr. Hanson was filed more than two years later, the district court correctly concluded it was time barred. We affirm on t
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|