 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kruschke v. Lovell11/3/2005
." Lovell asserted that he saw plaintiff after the surgery in the hospital and that he was certain that he had explained the full extent of the surgery to her, but he could not recall plaintiff's reaction.
Plaintiff indicated that she went to see Dr. Lovell on June 3, 1998, but she did not remember the specifics of any conversation between the two, although she was certain that they spoke, in general, about the surgery. Plaintiff testified that, by the time of this appointment, she was fully aware that her uterus had been removed and that she could not have children, and she also knew that both her ovaries had been removed and that she would need hormone therapy. Plaintiff further testified that at that appointment, she "was in shock and in anger. just didn't want the outcome to have been what it was." Lovell stated that, with respect to the June 3, 1998, office visit, he discussed the surgery, the findings, and the pathology report with plaintiff. Dr. Lovell additionally recalled that they had a lengthy discussion and that he was certain he had informed plaintiff that the surgery had been medically necessary. Lovell further indicated that he saw plaintiff five times post-operation and that the last office visit was in March 1999. He stated that at an appointment in December 1998, plaintiff expressed her unhappiness because she was still having pain on her left side.
Plaintiff testified that she stopped treating with Dr. Lovell and began treating with Dr. Licia Raymond in September 1999. Plaintiff contended that at that time she was still experiencing lower left abdominal pain and had been since the time of the surgery. She additionally testified that, although Dr. Raymond talked about doing further abdominal surgery in order to determine the cause of the pain, plaintiff never had this surgery performed. Plaintiff treated with Raymond until September 2001, at which time she had to go to Ohio to help care for her ill father. She testified that, while in Ohio, she went to see Dr. John Griffith in October 2002 for a refill on her estrogen prescription. Plaintiff maintained that she only saw Dr. Griffith once and that he viewed her surgical scar, at which point they discussed her hysterectomy. She informed Griffith that Dr. Lovell had found a cyst on her ovary and had diagnosed endometriosis. Plaintiff stated that Griffith repeatedly asked her whether Lovell had been trained in the United States. She testified that Griffith was "astounded," and he told her that "there's just no way you get a hysterectomy because you've got a ovarian cyst and endometriosis." Plaintiff contended that Griffith told her that he would offer her medical support if she wanted to pursue the matter legally.
Plaintiff filed her complaint against defendants on September 8, 2003. The parties stipulated to dismiss defendant Marquette General Hospital on July 2, 2004. Subsequently, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court agreed, ruling that plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that plaintiff did not show that her claim was saved by the discovery rule.
MCR 2.116(C)(7) allows for summary dismissal where a claim is barred by the statute of limitations. We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v Dep't of Transporation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). "Absent a disputed issue of fact, this Court decides de novo, as a question of law, whether a cause of action is barred by a statute of limitations." City of Novi v Woodson, 251 Mich App 614, 621; 651 NW2d 448 (2002).
The period of limitation for a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|