 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maldonado v. Leeds2/3/2005
en adopted to prevent harsh results from a mechanical application of the statute of limitations. The discovery rule provides that: in an appropriate case a cause of action will be held not to accrue until the injured party discovers, or by an exercise of reasonable diligence and intelligence should have discovered that he may have a basis for an actionable claim. [Lopez, supra, 62 N.J. at 272.]
The rationale underlying the discovery rule is that "an injured person, unaware that he has a cause of action, should be denied his day in court solely because of his ignorance, if he is otherwise blameless." Id. at 274. The discovery rule may be applicable when "injured parties reasonably are unaware that they have been injured, or, although aware of an injury, do not know that the injury is attributable to the fault of another." Baird v. Am. Med. Optics, 155 N.J. 54, 66 (1998).
To determine whether the discovery rule applies, a plenary hearing is necessary "since credibility is usually at issue." J.L. v. J.F., 317 N.J. Super. 418, 429 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 158 N.J. 685 (1999); Lopez, supra, 62 N.J. at 275. The standard for application of the discovery rule is objective: whether the plaintiff "knew or should have known of sufficient facts to start the statute of limitations running." Baird, supra, 155 N.J. at 72. A litigant will not generally succeed by claiming illiteracy or lack of education. Martinez v. Cooper Hosp.-Univ. Med. Ctr., 163 N.J. 45, 55 (2000). A litigant should not be penalized, however, for financial inability to seek a medical diagnosis and treatment in order to establish a Portee claim.
At a Lopez hearing, the equitable claims of opposing parties "must be identified, evaluated and weighed" and all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered. Lopez, supra, 62 N.J. at 274, 276. The determinative factors may include, but are not limited to, the nature of the alleged injury, the availability of witnesses and written evidence, the length of time that has elapsed since the alleged wrongdoing, whether the delay has been to any extent deliberate or intentional, whether the delay may be said to have peculiarly or unusually prejudiced the defendant.
[Id. at 276.]
The trial judge's determination that plaintiff's emotional distress claims accrued on the date of the accident was erroneous under the circumstances. The accrual date can only be determined after a plenary hearing at which all of the Lopez factors must be taken into consideration, including plaintiff's testimony as to when she became aware that she had a compensable injury. Baird, supra, 155 N.J. at 66.
Finally, the trial judge indicated that he was not going to determine whether plaintiff's claims amounted to intentional or negligent infliction of emotional stress. His comment, "Maybe the Appellate Division is going to handle this thing, and maybe they'll deal with it" was unnecessary and gratuitous. Judges are not expected to make determinations as to whether a claim is negligent or intentional. Plaintiff must elect to proceed on one or both claims after discovery. Of course, she must present evidence and carry her burden of proof with respect to either the negligent or intentional claims.
To summarize our decision, we hold that under the circumstances presented, the trial judge cannot make a determination "as a matter of law" that plaintiff's emotional distress claims do not satisfy the Portee standard. We further hold that under the circumstances presented, a Lopez hearing is required to determine when the statute of limitations on the emotional distress claims accrued.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 4 New Jersey Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|