 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hemmerlin-Stewart v. Allina Hospitals & Clinics9/6/2005
On appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents, concluding that appellant's medical-malpractice lawsuit was time-barred, appellant argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the statute of limitations should be tolled because of fraudulent concealment. We affirm.
FACTS
On March 24, 1989, appellant Jacqueline Hemmerlin-Stewart underwent a craniotomy at respondent Abbott Northwestern Hospital to remove a right-side acoustic neuroma. Respondent Mahmoud Nagib, M.D., an employee of respondent Neurosurgical Associates, Ltd., performed the surgery, and respondent Northwest Anesthesia, P.A. provided the anesthesia during the procedure. Appellant contends that during the surgery, central lines and/or catheters (CVL) were used and that at some point during the surgery, a CVL broke inside her body. On March 28, 1989, prior to being discharged, an x-ray was taken of appellant's chest, revealing a broken CVL in her left subclavian vein. A dictated x-ray report was placed in appellant's medical records that indicated: " lso noted is a left subclavian line, the catheter has made a curl and is pointing towards the second rib." Other than the dictated x-ray report, there is no record relating to appellant's surgery on March 24, 1989, indicating the installation or removal of a left subclavian catheter into or out of appellant's body.
On May 27, 2001, appellant was admitted to Fairview Ridges Hospital, and an emergency-room doctor informed her that a chest x-ray revealed a CVL imbedded in her left subclavicular vein. Appellant contends that this is the first she became aware of a CVL in her body and that, although she had been hospitalized or received outpatient treatment on at least eight occasions since 1975, none of these medical procedures required installation of a CVL. Appellant concluded that the CVL found in her left subclavian vein remained in her body following placement during her 1989 surgery. Appellant subsequently consulted with two physicians regarding the CVL in her body, and both stated that the CVL posed little, if any, risk to appellant and recommended avoiding surgical intervention to remove it.
On June 9, 2004, appellant commenced a medical-malpractice lawsuit, alleging that respondents were negligent for failing to remove the CVL and for not informing her about the existence of the CVL in her body and that respondents fraudulently concealed their negligent conduct. After initial discovery, respondents moved for summary judgment on the grounds that appellant's claim was time-barred and that appellant had not presented any evidence of fraudulent concealment. On November 22, 2004, the district court granted respondents' motions for summary judgment. The issue before this court is whether the district court properly granted respondents' motions for summary judgment.
DECISION
"On an appeal from summary judgment, the role of the reviewing court is to review the record for the purpose of answering two questions: (1) whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be determined, and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of the law." Offerdahl v. Univ. of Minn. Hosps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d 425, 427 (Minn. 1988). This court reviews de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Christensen v. Milbank Ins. Co., 658 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 2003). When reviewing a summary judgment, this court "must take a view of the evidence most favorable to the one against whom the motion was granted." Offerdahl, 426 N.W.2d at 427 (citing Abdallah Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 424, 6
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|