Bergstreser v. Mitchell, No. 76-1102C(A).

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: HARPER
• Citation: 448 F. Supp. 10
• Parties: Brian BERGSTRESER, an infant by Sherry Bergstreser, his mother and natural guardian, Sherry Bergstreser, Individually, and Ross Bergstreser, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. T. J. MITCHELL, M. D., G. A. Richardson, M. D., and St. Francis Hospital, Defendants.
• Docket Number: No. 76-1102C(A).
• Decision Date: 22 August 1977

448 F. Supp. 10

Brian BERGSTRESER, an infant by Sherry Bergstreser, his mother and natural guardian, Sherry Bergstreser, Individually, and Ross Bergstreser, Individually, Plaintiffs,
v.
T. J. MITCHELL, M. D., G. A. Richardson, M. D., and St. Francis Hospital, Defendants.

No. 76-1102C(A).

United States District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

August 22, 1977.

448 F. Supp. 11

James E. Hullverson, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs.

448 F. Supp. 12

Anthony F. Vaiana, St. Louis, Mo., for St. Francis Hospital.

George E. Lee, St. Louis, Mo., for Mitchell & Richardson.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HARPER, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on the joint motions of defendants for summary judgment, and the separate motions of defendant, St. Francis Hospital, for dismissal of Counts V, VI, VIII, IX and X for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and attacking the capacity of the mother to bring the suit for Brian, and for a more definite statement with respect to Counts V, VI, VIII, IX and X.

Plaintiffs are citizens of Colorado and defendants are citizens of Missouri. The jurisdiction of this Court exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because of diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00.

Plaintiffs, Ross Bergstreser, Sherry Bergstreser and Brian Bergstreser, a Minor (father, mother and son, respectively), bring this action for damages allegedly sustained from injuries arising out of alleged acts of medical malpractice by defendants. As a basis for their action, plaintiffs' complaint alleges that on or about February 22, 1972, Sherry Bergstreser had a Caesarean section performed upon her in a negligent manner by defendants, T. J. Mitchell, M. D., and G. A. Richardson, M. D. This operation was performed at the facility of defendant, St. Francis Hospital (hereinafter referred to as Hospital). Among plaintiffs' allegations of negligence is included an alleged failure to advise plaintiff, Sherry Bergstreser, of the condition of her uterus subsequent to the Caesarean section.

Thereafter, Sherry Bergstreser became pregnant with Brian. On October 22, 1974, approximately ten weeks prior to the expected delivery of Brian, Sherry Bergstreser suffered an occult rupture of the uterus. Plaintiffs allege that this rupture was caused by the negligent performance by defendants of the Caesarean section on February 22, 1972. As a result of this rupture, Sherry Bergstreser was forced to undergo a premature emergency Caesarean section to accomplish the delivery of Brian. Through the course of this delivery, Brian allegedly suffered through a period of hypoxia and/or anoxia which caused serious injuries, including brain damage, to him.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint is brought in ten counts. The claims of Brian Bergstreser are brought by his mother, Sherry Bergstreser, as his natural guardian. His claims are pleaded in Counts I, III, V and VII against Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Richardson, St. Francis Hospital, and all of the defendants jointly and severally, respectively. The claims of Sherry Bergstreser for her injuries are brought in Counts II, IV, VI, and VIII against Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Richardson, St. Francis Hospital, and all of the defendants jointly and severally, respectively. Count IX is brought by Sherry and Ross Bergstreser against the defendants for loss of their son's services and medical expenses for his care and treatment. Count X is brought by Ross Bergstreser against the defendants for the loss of his wife's services and for medical expenses for her care and treatment.

In response to the aforesaid complaint, defendants Mitchell and Richardson filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment asserting therein that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations, Mo. Ann.Stat. § 516.105 (1976).

Defendant Hospital has submitted separate motions to dismiss, for a more definite statement, and to strike. It has also joined in the motion for summary judgment of defendants Mitchell and Richardson.

In its motion to dismiss the defendant Hospital asserts that the plaintiff, Brian Bergstreser, fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, that as to all counts such actions are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, citing Mo. Ann.Stat. § 516.140 (1939), that as to Count V the plaintiff, Sherry Bergstreser, lacks capacity to bring an action for her son Brian, inasmuch as she has not been appointed

448 F. Supp. 13

as a next friend or guardian ad litem, and that no cause of action exists for injuries to an infant caused by a negligent act committed prior to conception

The defense of limitations may be raised by a motion to dismiss where the complaint shows on its face that the action has not been instituted within the limitation period, and it is apparent that there is no factual controversy surrounding the availability of the defense. Rose Barge Line, Inc. v. Hicks, 421 F.2d 163 (8th Cir. 1970); Tanner v. President's-First Lady Spa, Inc., 345 F.Supp. 950 (E.D.Mo.1972); Schaefer v. United States, 288 F.Supp. 93 (E.D.Mo.1968).

Turning first to the joint motion of all defendants for summary judgment, Rule 56 considers summary judgment and provides in part:

"Motion and Proceedings Thereon. * * The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

According to established principle, once a motion for summary judgment is made, the Court examines the evidence, not to decide issues of fact which may be presented, but rather to determine if any real issue exists. Doza v. American National Ins. Co., 314 F.2d 230, 232 (8th Cir. 1963). As interpreted by the courts, Rule 56 places on the moving party "the burden of showing the absence of a...