 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fluri v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center11/14/2005
efferson, 875 S.W.2d 653, 656-57 (Tenn. 1994)). A plaintiff's knowledge that "the appropriate legal standard" has been breached is not a prerequisite for commencement of the statute of limitations. Roe. In addition, the commencement of the statute of limitations does not wait for the plaintiff to acquire actual knowledge of "all the injurious effects and consequences of the alleged wrong." Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726, 733 (Tenn. 1998). Thus, the statute of limitations is tolled only during that period of time when the plaintiff has neither actual nor constructive knowledge of (1) the injury, (2) the wrongful conduct causing that injury, and (3) the identity of the party or parties who engaged in that wrongful conduct.
The determination of when a plaintiff had constructive knowledge of these facts, however, "is generally a question for the trier of fact." McIntosh, 164 S.W.3d at 586; see also Matz v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., Inc., No. E2003-00167-COA-R3-CV, 2003 WL 22409452, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); McClellan v. Stanley, 978 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleged that Ms. Fluri's injury occurred on December 29, 2000, and therefore, the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the injury on that date. As for the allegedly wrongful conduct causing the injury and the identities of those who engaged in that conduct, Ms. Fluri stated in an affidavit:
Prior to the receipt of Fort Sanders' supplemental responses to interrogatories filed on January 27, 2003 and Dr. Tolhurst's testimony on June 18, 2003, I did not have any facts nor did I possess any knowledge that would have indicated to me that Dr. Blue and Vista Radiology, P.C. had failed to properly interpret the x-ray film that was obtained on December 19, 2000.
Viewing this statement in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the allegedly wrongful conduct and the identity of those who engaged in this conduct on June 18, 2003. If commencement of the statute of limitations were based on actual knowledge alone, the statute would commence to run on that date. However, commencement of the statute of limitations is not based on actual knowledge alone. The issue thus becomes is whether the plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of the requisite facts prior to her actual knowledge. Ms. Fluri's affidavit states that:
hroughout the course of my care and treatment, Dr. Brown indicated that the surgery on December 19, 2000 . . . was successful. I was never informed that the surgery on December 19, 2000 had allegedly caused a fracture."
Plaintiffs argue that by June 22, 2001 a reasonable person would have no factual basis to believe that Dr. Blue and Vista had engaged in any allegedly wrongful conduct. Thus, plaintiffs argue that a reasonable person would have no factual knowledge of Dr. Blue and Vista's wrongful conduct until June 18, 2003, when Dr. Tolhurst's deposition on that date revealed that he observed a faint line on the x-ray films taken on both December 19 and December 20, 2000. In response, defendants argue that plaintiff had constructive knowledge of Dr. Blue's and Vista's allegedly wrongful conduct on December 29, because:
the extremely close temporal proximity of the fracture to the knee replacement surgery placed plaintiffs on notice that a problem may have existed from the time of the surgery on December 19, creating a duty to investigate what happened immediately before, during and immediately after her surgery.
They emphasize the fact that Ms. Fluri's injury to her left leg occurred only ten days after she had surgery
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|