 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eisenmenger v. Ethicon3/24/1994
o Eisenmenger's injuries. Ten days later, Eisenmenger filed a motion asking the court to assess sanctions against Ethicon for failure to disclose Dr. Olcott's opinions in response to discovery requests dating back to 1988.
In its order granting Eisenmenger's motion, the court stated that Ethicon had made a "knowing concealment" of Dr. Olcott's testimony, and that, had the court known of Dr. Olcott's testimony it was "very doubtful" that Dr. Mungas's motion for summary judgment would have been granted. The court concluded Eisenmenger had suffered extreme prejudice due to Ethicon's discovery abuses and that she was entitled to sanctions. It entered a default judgment against Ethicon on the issue of liability.
The case was tried to a jury for purposes of determining the amount of damages. Following the jury's verdict that Eisenmenger's damages totaled $2,308,155, Ethicon appeals. Eisenmenger and Dr. Mungas have each raised issues on cross-appeal but, as a result of our resolution of the issues raised by Ethicon, we do not reach those issues.
ISSUE 1
Whether the District Court erred in holding that the statute of limitations for Eisenmenger's product liability claim against Ethicon was tolled by § 27-6-702, MCA.
Section 27-6-702, MCA, which is part of the Montana Medical Legal Panel Act (Act), provides:
The running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim is tolled upon receipt by the director of the application for review as to all health care providers named in the application as parties to the panel proceeding and as to all other persons or entities named in the application as necessary or proper parties for any court action which might subsequently arise out of the same factual circumstances set forth in the application.
Ethicon contends § 27-6-702, MCA, tolls the statute of limitations in malpractice claims only, and not in product liability claims such as this one.
Ethicon's position reflects the reference, at the beginning of the statute, to "a malpractice claim." "Malpractice claim" is defined at § 27-6-103(5), MCA, as a claim or potential claim "against a health care provider." "Health care provider" is defined under § 27-6-103(3), MCA, to mean a physician, a dentist, or a health care facility.
Because "malpractice claim" is defined as a claim against a "health care provider," the statement in § 27-6-702, MCA, that the statute of limitations is tolled as to "all health care providers named in the application" addresses most "malpractice claims" as defined in the Act. The only exception initially appears to be malpractice claims against health care providers not named in the application. However, § 27-6-702, MCA, further provides that the tolling applies also "as to all other persons or entities named . . . as necessary or proper parties for any court action . . . out of the same factual circumstances." We conclude that § 27-6-702, MCA, is ambiguous about the types of claims for which it tolls the statute of limitations.
If the plain words of a statute are ambiguous, the next step in judicial interpretation of the statute is to determine the intent of the legislature. Montana Contractors' Ass'n. v. Dept. of Hwys. (1986), 220 Mont. 392, 394, 715 P.2d 1056, 1058. This is accomplished by examining the legislative history of the statute, including the title of the original bill. Montana Contractors' Ass'n., 715 P.2d at 1058; Gaub v. Milbank Ins. Co. (1986), 220 Mont. 424, 428, 715 P.2d 443, 445.
Section 27-6-702, MCA (1983), read:
The running of the applicable limitation period in a malpractice claim
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|