Baysinger v. Schmid Products Co., 1

• Decision Date: 01 September 1986
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 307 Md. 361,514 A.2d 1
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,106 Suzanne C. BAYSINGER et vir., v. SCHMID PRODUCTS COMPANY. ,
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 361

307 Md. 361

514 A.2d 1, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,106

Suzanne C. BAYSINGER et vir., v. SCHMID PRODUCTS COMPANY.

No. 1, Sept. Term, 1986.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 28, 1986.

Michael A. Pretl (Nicole Schultheis and Pretl & Schultheis, P.A., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant Baysinger.

Phillips P. O'Shaughnessy (John E. Sandbower III and Sandbower, Gabler & O'Shaughnessy, P.A., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee Schmid Products Co.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., SMITH, ^* ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

COUCH, Judge.

In this products liability case, Schmid Products Company, appellee and manufacturer of the Saf-T-Coil intrauterine device used by appellant Suzanne C. Baysinger, obtained a dismissal of appellant's action through the granting of its motion for summary judgment by the Circuit Court for Worcester County. This decision was founded on the conclusion of the trial judge that the action was time barred, not having been filed within three years of its accrual. ¹ The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported, per curiam opinion, No. 259, September Term, 1985, filed November 29, 1985. We granted certiorari to consider the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court may determine that a cause of action has accrued under the discovery rule, on motion for summary judgment, by resolving factual inferences, evaluating witnesses' credibility, and deciding other matters generally reserved for the jury.

2. Whether under the discovery rule, knowledge of a manufacturer's wrongdoing or of product defect is required, in addition to knowledge of possible causation, to trigger the statute of limitations in a medical products liability action.

Our conclusion as to the first issue makes it unnecessary to consider the second. As to the first issue, we hold the trial judge erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment, as did the Court of Special Appeals in affirming the trial judge's ruling. Consequently, we reverse.

The factual backdrop leading to the present dispute is largely uncontroverted. In May, 1979, Mrs. Baysinger had a Saf-T-Coil intrauterine contraceptive device inserted at the Wicomico County Health Department family planning clinic. The device was worn by her until she began to experience lower abdominal pains in November of that year. She then came under the care of Dr. James P. Gallaher who removed the coil and prescribed Ampicillin. Mrs. Baysinger's symptoms improved until December 25, 1979 when she was admitted to a local hospital with severe abdominal pain and high fever; she was subsequently diagnosed as having acute peritonitis with bilateral tubo-ovarian abscesses. It now appears that she may be infertile.

On January 17, 1984, the Baysingers filed suit against Schmid Products Company seeking compensation for these injuries. Mrs. Baysinger alleges that she did not know the cause of her injury or of the "facts underlying defendant's wrongdoing or the defective nature of its product until after January, 1983." Furthermore, the deposition of Dr. Gallaher and Mrs. Baysinger's affidavit demonstrate that Dr. Gallaher had no idea what caused her illness; nor did his associate, Dr. Cho, who tended her during her December, 1979 hospitalization. Mrs. Baysinger had asked Dr. Cho specifically whether the coil was responsible, and he responded that there could be several possible causes but could not state the coil was responsible. This conversation was reflected in appellant's affidavit filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment wherein she stated:

"That during the hospitalization at Penisula [sic] General Hospital in December 1979-January 1980 she inquired of Dr. Cho whether there may have been some causal relationship between her use of an intrauterine device (which had been removed a few weeks earlier) and the severe infection which put her in the hospital; the subject has also been discussed with Dr. Cho since that hospitalization. She has been concerned whether the infection and related injuries which she suffered were related to use of the intrauterine device, on the one hand, or may have been caused by toxic shock syndrome or related to sexual intercourse. Dr. Cho has consistently expressed an opinion, which apparently is still his opinion today, that although intrauterine devices have been associated with pelvic infection in the literature, he has no way of determining whether her infection was caused by the Saf-T-Coil or by some other unrelated occurrence or instrumentality."

However, according to her affidavit she did get some indication of possible causation from her sister in approximately January, 1983. This came about as a result of an advertisement in a local newspaper. It was at this time she sought counsel and suit was filed, albeit more than three years from the purchase date of the coil and from the November, 1979 onset of abdominal pain. Following a limited amount of discovery (the taking of Dr. Gallaher's deposition by appellee), Schmid Products filed a motion for summary judgment based entirely on its contention that the statute of limitations had run since some four years and one month had elapsed from the accrual of Mrs. Baysinger's cause of action.

In a written "Opinion and Order of Court" the trial judge, after reviewing the pleadings, Mrs. Baysinger's affidavit, Dr. Gallaher's deposition, and the record, concluded in pertinent part:

"As Mrs. Levy's [ Lutheran Hosp. of Maryland v. Levy, 60 Md.App. 227, 482 A.2d 23 (1984), cert. denied, 302 Md. 288, 487 A.2d 292 (1985) ] visit to Dr. Wiedmann did not occur in a vacuum, neither did Mrs. Baysinger's hospitalization in December of 1979 occur in a vacuum. From her inquiry it is clear that no later than December of 1979 at least some suspicion existed on her part that her problems might be related to the Saf-T-Coil device.

"Obviously, Mrs. Baysinger, after having had a recently implanted device removed in November, 1979, as treatment for her abdominal distress followed by hospitalization in December, 1979, with similar symptoms and her resulting inquiries as to the cause of her distress, was, or should have reasonably been aware that she 'might have been wronged' (Lutheran supra page 6 of Slip Opinion) by the device."

Drawing loosely from language in Lutheran and Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 431 A.2d 677 (1981), the trial judge continued:

"On the record before this Court a reasonable fact finder could only conclude that as of December, 1979, Mrs. Baysinger had knowledge; (or should have had knowledge) of circumstances which ought to have put her 'with notice of all facts which such an investigation would have disclosed if it had been properly pursued.'

"As implicitly inferred in Lutheran the limitation period, in this case three years, gives ample time to conduct further investigation in reference to such claims.

'From that date the statute itself allows sufficient time --- three years --- for reasonably diligent inquiry and for making a decision as to whether to file suit ( Lutheran supra).'

"In Lutheran, Mrs. Levy argued...