 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
HUME v. LONG12/5/1988
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 1-53(4) (1983).
Hume's estate argues that the statute of limitations differentiates between medical malpractice actions arising
Reading the statute of limitations as a whole, it is clear that medical malpractice is a species of professional malpractice governed by the three year period of limitation in Section 1-15(c). On the other hand, the two year period in Section 1-53(4) applies solely to statutory actions brought under Lord Campbell's Act. Hume's estate concedes that actions for medical malpractice and actions under Lord Campbell's Act are separate and distinct. The estate's claim is for medical malpractice.
Not only is the estate's position contrary to a reading of the North Carolina statutes; it also finds no support in the North Carolina decisions. Hume's attorneys were unable to cite a single North Carolina case holding that there are two different periods of limitation for medical malpractice actions
If the three year statute is applied to this case, Long and Powell are not guilty of letting the statute run on Hume's malpractice claim. When they ceased to represent the estate, the statute still had some eight or nine months to run. This was ample time for Hume's new attorneys to file an action in North Carolina. The estate's cause of action was not barred as a result of any neglect by Long or Powell. Therefore, the circuit court correctly granted them summary judgment.
For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|