 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dowling v. Bullen11/7/2002
(For Official Publication)
Appellant Suzanne Dowling appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Appellee Kathleen Bullen. We reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
The operative facts of this case are undisputed, and we will recite them as contained in the trial court's summary judgment order, dated November 19, 2001. In late 1994, Dowling's daughters began receiving counseling from Bullen, a licenced clinical social worker . Dowling and her then husband, James, also began "individual therapy" with Bullen. In January 1996, James filed for divorce. By June 1996, Dowling's family had completely discontinued counseling with Bullen at Bullen's recommendation. On September 26, 1996, a divorce decree issued. At approximately the same time, James and Bullen announced their intention to marry, and Dowling received information indicating that Bullen had initiated an intimate relationship with James during the course of counseling and prior to the filing of the petition for divorce.
On September 25, 2000, Dowling filed suit for, inter alia, alienation of affections. Bullen filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that the action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-4 (1996) (the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act, referred to hereinafter as "the Act"). The trial court granted Bullen's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the Act applied because the behavior complained of was "related to and [arose] out of the mental health treatment Ms. Bullen provided to [Dowling] and [Dowling's] family," thus bringing the action within the Act's purview. Dowling appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
"'We review the trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment for correctness and accord no deference to the trial court's conclusions of law.'" Parduhn v. Bennet, 2002 UT 93, , 455 Utah Adv. Rep. 61 (quoting Malibu Inv. Corp. v. Sparks, 2000 UT 30, , 996 P.2d 1043).
Dowling challenges the trial court's conclusion that the Act's two-year statute of limitations applies to her action for alienation of affections. She argues that the behavior complained of did not "relat to or arise out of health care rendered or which should have been rendered by" Bullen. Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-3(15) (Supp. 2002) (defining "Malpractice action " covered by the Act). "'The interpretation of a statute . . . presents a question of law, which this court reviews for correctness.'" Parks v. Utah Transit Auth., 2002 UT 55, , 53 P.3d 473 (citing State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 796 (Utah 1991)).
ANALYSIS
"A trial court may properly grant summary judgment when 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' . . . In deciding whether summary judgment was appropriate, we need review only whether the trial court erred in applying the relevant law and whether a material fact was in dispute." WebBank v. American Gen. Annuity Serv. Corp., 2002 UT 88, , 454 Utah Adv. Rep. 48 (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c); other citations omitted).
Dowling argues that even if no genuine issues of material fact existed, Bullen was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because her behavior was unrelated to the medical treatment she provided. Thus, Dowling argues, the Act's two-year statute of limitations does not apply to her action for alienation of affections. Instead, Dowling contends the general four-year statute of limitations contained in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25 (1996) applies, and the trial court thus erred in awarding Bullen summary judgment.
Section 78-
Page 1 2 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|