 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medved v. Glenn11/15/2005
of appeals. Moreover, in view of the arguments presented in this case, it appears as if it has been widely accepted in our legal community. It is therefore entirely possible, if not likely, that prospective plaintiffs have delayed filing suit due to the widely-accepted, but erroneous, interpretation of our holding in Seale.
To avoid the substantial injustice that may otherwise flow from our holding today, we note that it should be applied only prospectively, in effect tolling the statute of limitations for all individuals who may have relied on the erroneous interpretation. See Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661, 676 (Utah 1984) (petition for reh'g) ("The general rule from time immemorial is that the ruling of a court is deemed to state the true nature of the law both retrospectively and prospectively. . . . Whether the general rule should be departed from depends on whether a substantial injustice would otherwise occur."). Consequently, for those individuals who may have delayed filing their causes of action due to the erroneous interpretation of Seale, the statute of limitations on their claims will begin to run as of the date of this opinion.
II. HAS MS. MEDVED PLEADED A LEGALLY COGNIZABLE INJURY ?
Pursuant to our discussion above, Ms. Medved is entitled to seek damages relating to a possible recurrence of cancer if she has simultaneously pleaded a legally cognizable injury . A legally cognizable injury occurs when "'the injured person knew or should have known that he had sustained an injury and that the injury was caused by negligent action.'" Seale v. Gowans, 923 P.2d 1361, 1363 (Utah 1996) (quoting Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144, 148 (Utah 1979)); see also Collins v. Wilson, 1999 UT 56, 19, 984 P.2d 960 (" iscovery of legal injury, therefore, encompasses both awareness of physical injury and knowledge that the injury is or may be attributable to negligence." (internal quotations omitted)).
We conclude that the court of appeals erred in holding that Ms. Medved did not plead a legally cognizable injury . The complaint alleges that Ms. Medved suffered a present legal injury by having to undergo more extensive cancer treatment than she would have undergone had her cancer been timely diagnosed. This treatment included a mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation. The damages associated with having to undergo such treatments clearly constitute a legally cognizable injury. Because Ms. Medved has alleged such an injury, she is entitled to plead a cause of action for future damages as well.
CONCLUSION
We hold that Ms. Medved is entitled to seek damages associated with the possible future recurrence of her cancer because she simultaneously pleaded a legally cognizable injury . Because many may have relied on an erroneous interpretation of our prior opinion in Seale, our holding in this matter is to be applied only prospectively.
Chief Justice Durham, Associate Chief Justice Wilkins, Justice Durrant, and Justice Nehring concur in Justice Parrish's opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|