MONROE v HARPER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12498 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1974 WILLIAM J . MONROE, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - JACK R. HARPER, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Scanlon, B r o l i n and Connors, Anaconda, Montana J a c k M. Scanlon a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana Louis F o r s e l l argued For Respondent : Gough, Booth, Shanahan and Johnson, Helena, Montana Ronald Waterman a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted: J a n u a r y 14, 1974 Decided :f%@ F i l e d :F E -I1 ~ 4 . ~ -1 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a c t i o n f o r damages a r i s i n g from a claim of medical malpractice. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Lewis and Clark County, Hon. P e t e r G. Meloy, d i s t r i c t judge, granted defendant's motion t o dismiss t h e complaint. From t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment of d i s m i s s a l and r e f u s a l t o g r a n t a motion t o vacate t h e same, p l a i n t i f f appeals. On J u l y 30, 1963, p l a i n t i f f William J. Monroe s u f f e r e d i n - j u r i e s t o h i s back a s a r e s u l t of an a c c i d e n t while he was employed by t h e Boland Development Company of Butte, Montana, a s a c o n t r a c t miner i n t h e Kelly s h a f t . He placed himself under t h e c a r e of D r . Jack R. Harper, defendant h e r e i n , t h e following November. Following an examination i n November 1963, defendant advised p l a i n t i f f t h a t he needed surgery on two ruptured d i s c s i n t h e lower s p i n a l a r e a and t h a t i f p l a i n t i f f submitted t o an II a n t e r i o r s p i n a l fusion" with i n s t a l l a t i o n of a s p i n a l clamp he would be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o work w i t h i n s i x months. On Dec- ember 30, 1963, defendant performed an a n t e r i o r lumbar s p i n a l f u s i o n between p l a i n t i f f ' s L-5 v e r t e b r a and t h e sacrum by means of a t t a c h i n g t o t h e 5 t h lumbar v e r t e b r a and sacrum a device known a s a T-Humphrey clamp p l a t e . I n h i s complaint, p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t defendant: (1) Was n e g l i g e n t i n h i s c a r e and treatment of p l a i n t i f f i n t h a t he f a i l e d t o possess and e x e r c i s e t h a t degree of s k i l l o r d i n a r i l y possessed by r e p u t a b l e members of h i s profession; ( 2 ) Was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o o b t a i n p l a i n t i f f ' s f u l l y informed consent t o t h e operation; (3) Was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s u l t with more q u a l i f i e d physicians; and (4) Fraudulently concealed from p l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e T-Humphrey clamp p l a t e was an experimental device, and t h a t p l a i n t i f f believed and r e l i e d upon statements made by defendant t o t h e c o n t r a r y . P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t defendant knew and concealed from p l a i n t i f f h i s " t r u e c o n d i t i o n " and p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t d i s cover t h e 11 fraud" u n t i l he r e a d a newspaper account i n May 1972, o f a n o t h e r s u i t brought a g a i n s t defendant by one I v a r Stenberg. It was a t t h i s time t h a t p l a i n t i f f l e a r n e d t h e o p e r a t i o n performed was unique, unorthodox and experimental and t h a t t h e II T-Humphrey Clamp P l a t e was a n experimental device. 1I P l a i n t i f f f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t on January 22, 1973, t o r e c o v e r damages r e s u l t i n g from t h e a l l e g e d p r o f e s s i o n a l n e g l i g e n c e o f defendant. Plaintiff alleged that a s a "~roximate r e s u l t " o f d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n c e he was t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d from J u l y 30, 1963, t h e d a t e of t h e mine a c c i d e n t , u n t i l December 1, 1969; and t h a t he i s now permanently p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s and denied p l a i n t i f f ' s motion t o v a c a t e such d i s m i s s a l . Although t h e grounds were n o t s t a t e d , both p a r t i e s concede t h e c o u r t ' s a c t i o n w a s based on t h e b a r of t h e t h r e e y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a tions. P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment o f d i s m i s s a l and r e f u s a l t o v a c a t e t h e same. The o n l y i s s u e i s whether t h e a c t i o n i s b a r r e d by t h e t h r e e y e a r s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s i n s e c t i o n 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947, which r e q u i r e s commencement w i t h i n t h r e e y e a r s o f : "3. An a c t i o n upon a n o b l i g a t i o n o r l i a b i l i t y , n o t founded upon an instrument i n w r i t i n g , o t h e r than a c o n t r a c t , account o r promise. 1I P l a i n t i f f contends t h e t h r e e y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s should begin t o r u n from t h e d a t e p l a i n t i f f discovered t h e "fraud", t h a t i s , l4ay 1972; t h e d a t e he r e a d a newspaper account of ano t h e r s u i t brought a g a i n s t defendant r e l a t i n g t o a s i m i l a r type of o p e r a t i o n . Defendant, on t h e o t h e r hand, contends t h e t h r e e y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s should b e g i n t o r u n from t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n c e , t h a t i s , December 1963, t h e d a t e of the operation. p l a i n t i f f ' s argument i s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e was suspended by reason of f r a u d u l e n t concealment. He contends t h e d o c t r i n e of f r a u d u l e n t concealment i s recognized i n Montana. Geophysical Div., 156 Mont. 450, 481 P.2d 327. Carlson v. Ray Further, t h a t f r a u d u l e n t concealment i s present i n t h i s c a s e by reason of defendant's f a i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e t o p l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e o p e r a t i o n was unique, unorthodox, and experimental. He argues t h a t t h e complaint on i t s f a c e does n o t show whether t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s had run and, t h e r e f o r e , he should be allowed t o prove t h e exception of f r a u d u l e n t concealment t o t h e running of t h e s t a t u t e . W accept p l a i n t i f f ' s general contention t h a t i n c e r t a i n male p r a c t i c e a c t i o n s t h e l i m i t a t i o n period begins t o run when t h e p a t i e n t d i s c o v e r s , o r by t h e use of reasonable d i l i g e n c e could have discovered, h i s i n j u r y . Johnson v. St. p a t r i c k ' s Hosp., o 148 Mont. 125, 417 P.2d 469; Grey v. S i l v e r B w County, 149 Mont. 213, 425 P.2d 819. But, t h e d o c t r i n e of "discovery" o r "fraudu- l e n t concealment" i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e i n s t a n t case. S t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n a r e regarded a s s t a t u t e s of repose governing t h e period w i t h i n which a c t i o n s must be brought and a r e designed t o compel t h e e x e r c i s e of a r i g h t of a c t i o n w i t h i n a reasonable t i m e , while t h e evidence remains f r e s h i n t h e memory of t h e witnesses. They a l s o serve t h e purpose of suppressing s t a l e o r f r a u d u l e n t claims. Anaconda Min. Co. v. S a i l e , 16 Mont. 8 , 39 B. 909; B i l l i n g s v, S i s t e r s of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Ida. 485, 389 P.2d 224; 51 Am J u r 2d, Limitation of Actions, $ 16. However, i n a t o r t a c t i o n based upon malpractice, t h e applicat i o n of t h e g e n e r a l r u l e becomes d i f f i c u l t where t h e i n j u r e d person i s prevented from knowing of h i s i n j u r y due t o concealment of f a c t s by t h e t r e a t i n g physician, o r where, by i t s very n a t u r e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o discover t h e i n j u r y u n t i l a l a t e r d a t e . In such c a s e s most c o u r t s give r e c o g n i t i o n t o c e r t a i n implied except i o n s which t o l l t h e running of t h e s t a t u t e when i t can be shown t h a t fraud has been p e r p e t r a t e d upon t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y s u f f i c i e n t t o place him i n ignorance of h i s r i g h t t o a cause of a c t i o n o r t o prevent him from discovering his injury. Buck v Mouradian, . (~1a.App. 1958), 100 S.2d 70. The purpose is to promote equity and justice of the individual case by preventing a party from asserting his rights under a general technical rule of law when he has so conducted himself that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience to avail himself of his legal defense. Lakeman v, La France, 102 N.H. 300, 156 A.2d 123. Although not applicable here, the Montana legislature in 1971 saw fit to adopt by statute this exception to the general rule; where such failure to disclose is known or through the use of reasonable diligence subsequent to said negligent act would have been known to the medical practitioner. Section 93-2624, R.C.M. 1947. The doctrines of "discovery1'and "fraudulent concealment" are most commonly applied to fact situations &ere a foreign object is negligently left in the patient's body during the course of the operation and it is not until a later date that the foreign object is discovered. Ruth v. Dight, 75 Wash.2d 660, 453 P.2d 631, They also have been applied to actions as to the wrongful removal of organs or negligent diagnosis or where subsequent infections caused by improper sterilization were not discovered until a later date. Janisch v. Mullins, 1 Wash.App. 393, 461 P.2d 895; Anno. 80 ALR2d 368. In these cases the plaintiff alleged that a past negligent act was fraudulently concealed or a subsequent injury occurred which could not have been discovered by the patient through reasonable diligence at the time the act took place. To toll the statute of limitations the fraud must be of such a character as to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or to mislead the party who claims the cause of action. 236 Ind. 101, 138 N.E.2d concealment. 891. Guy v. Schuldt, There first must be injury and then It is the cause of action which must be fraudulently concealed by failing to disclose the fact of injury from malpractice, by diverting the patient from discovering the malpractice t h a t i s t h e b a s i s of t h e a c t i o n . 676, 110 N.W.2d 731. Eschenbacher v. Hier, 363 Mich. Fraudulent concealment has been described a s t h e employment of a r t i f i c e , planned t o prevent i n q u i r y o r escape i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and mislead o r hinder a c q u i s i t i o n of i n formation d i s c l o s i n g a r i g h t of a c t i o n . Draws v. Levin, 332 Mich. 447, 52 N.W.2d 180. From t h e f a c e of p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint i t i s apparent t h e d o c t r i n e of f r a u d u l e n t concealment i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i n s t a n t case. I n e f f e c t , p l a i n t i f f i s r e a l l y a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e operation was performed without h i s informed consent. The complaint a l l e g e s t h a t defendant d i d n o t make a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e of t h e "experimental n a t u r e t t of t h e operation t o be performed. This i s n o t t h e t y p i c a l f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e d o c t r i n e i s applied where t h e defendant-physician informed t h e p a t i e n t t h a t he would operate i n one manner, y e t s e l e c t e d another method of procedure and f a i l e d t o inform t h e p a t i e n t of t h e change. Nor i s t h i s a s i t u a t i o n where t h e physician f r a u d u l e n t l y conceals a p a s t n e g l i g e n t a c t i n o r d e r t o prevent i n q u i r y o r hinder acquis i t i o n of information d i s c l o s i n g t h e f a c t of i n j u r y o r a r i g h t of a c t i o n . I n h i s complaint p l a i n t i f f admits knowledge of t h e type of operation t o be performed. It i s conceded t h a t p l a i n t i f f was aware t h a t defendant intended t o perform an a n t e r i o r f u s i o n with a clamp p l a t e t o be i n s e r t e d i n h i s back. P l a i n t i f f was informed i n d e t a i l of t h e operation procedure t o be performed and admits he consented t o t h a t operation. I n a d d i t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o prove fraudulent concealment, i t appears t h a t he was n o t reasonably d i l i g e n t i n h i s discovery of t h e a l l e g e d n e g l i g e n t a c t . P l a i n t i f f admits by way of a l l e g a t i o n t h a t defendant assured him he would be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o work w i t h i n s i x months of t h e operation. Yet, f o r s i x years a f t e r t h e operation p l a i n t i f f admits t o being t o t a l l y d i s abled and permanently p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d s i n c e then. He had n o t i c e , by t h e continuing d i s a b i l i t y , t h a t t h e operation had n o t succeeded, a s expected. H i s condition should have provided him with n o t i c e of f a i l u r e and should have put on i n q u i r y t o a s c e r t a i n why t h e f a i l u r e had occurred. However, p l a i n t i f f d i d not i n q u i r e , r a t h e r he s l e p t on and ignored t h i s n o t i c e . Eight y e a r s elapsed between t h e t i m e p l a i n t i f f was assured recovery and t h e f i l i n g of h i s claim. H i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he was damaged comes too l a t e . It i s now barred by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . Section 93-2605, R.C.M. 1947. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
