 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dowling v. Bullen11/7/2002
14-3(15) provides:
"Malpractice action against a health care provider" means any action against a health care provider, whether in contract, tort, breach of warranty, wrongful death, or otherwise, based upon alleged personal injuries relating to or arising out of health care rendered or which should have been rendered by the health care provider. Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-3(15) (emphasis added).
Bullen urges that the alleged injuries "aris out of health care" she provided, id., because without having provided counseling services Bullen never would have been in a position to develop a relationship with James.
However, " ubsections of a statute should not be construed in a vacuum but must be read as part of the statute as a whole." Utah County v. Orem City, 699 P.2d 707, 709 (Utah 1985). The Act's statute of limitations does not automatically apply to any cause of action simply because a health care provider provided health care. Section 78-14-3(10) provides: "'Health care' means any act or treatment performed or furnished . . . by any health care provider for, to, or on behalf of a patient during the patient's medical care, treatment, or confinement." Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-3(10) (emphasis added). Reading this definition of health care alongside section 78-14-3(15), which requires that the injuries relate to or arise out of "health care," Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-3(15), the Act requires that the health care in question must have been provided to the complaining patient.
In this case, Bullen provided individual treatment to both James and Dowling. However, the alleged alienation of affections, while arguably "relating to or arising out of health care rendered" to James, id., did not relate to or arise out of the health care rendered to Dowling. Dowling, the patient, has not complained of "any act or treatment performed or furnished . . .by [Bullen] for, to, or on behalf of [Dowling] during [Dowling]'s medical care, treatment, or confinement." Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-3(10). Thus, we conclude that the Act, when read as a whole, does not apply to Dowling's alienation of affections claim since Dowling is not "the patient ," id., out of whose health care the alleged wrong arose.
Accordingly, the trial court erred in applying the Act's two-year statute of limitations. We reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge
WE CONCUR:
Judith M. Billings, Associate Presiding Judge
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
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.
|
|