 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McKeen v. American Home Products Corp.4/14/2005
000. She further stated that her firm had received a website lead from McKeen on January 31, 2001, and that that was McKeen's first contact with her firm. The Plaintiff thus asserts that, at best, Wyeth can show that a conversation regarding PPA took place between St. George and Moul after February 17, 1999, while Moul was working for McKeen. McKeen further asserts that the evidence she has produced in objecting to the Defendants' motion indicates that McKeen learned about a possible connection between PPA and stroke, at the earliest, in September of 2000, when she acquired her computer. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that she was well within the three year statutory period when she filed suit in June of 2001.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Rustigian v. Celona, 478 A.2d 187, 189 (R.I. 1984), this Court finds that there is a factual dispute as to when and from whom McKeen learned of a possible causal connection between ingesting the Defendants' product containing PPA and her stroke. More importantly, the Defendants have produced no evidence indicating that McKeen knew or should have known of the Defendants' alleged wrongdoing, which, under the holding in Anthony, ultimately triggers the statute of limitations to commence running. Anthony, 490 A.2d at 46; see also Zuccolo v. Blazar, 694 A.2d 717, 718 R.I. 1997) (determining that where a plaintiff began taking a particular drug in 1985, a cause of action for medical malpractice against prescribing and treating physicians did not accrue until 1988 when the plaintiff, suspecting a connection between his joint pain and the drug, received a fourth opinion in 1988, confirming his suspicion). Here, the Plaintiff has come forward with evidence that she learned of the possible connection within three years before filing her suit; it is a logical inference that she could have learned of any alleged wrongdoing on Defendants' part only after that event. This factual dispute merits consideration by a finder of fact.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the pleadings, depositions, admissions on file and affidavits of the parties, and viewing the same in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party McKeen, this Court concludes that material issues of fact exist. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Counsel shall submit an appropriate order.
|