Boland v. Saint Luke's Health Sys., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. SC 93906,SC 93906
• Citation: 471 S.W.3d 703
• Parties: Sally Boland, Sherri Lynn Harper, David C. Gann, Jennirae Littrell, Natural Daughter of Decedent Clarence Bailey Warner, Helen Pittman, Natural Sister of Decedent Shirley R. Eller, Appellants, v. Saint Luke's Health System, Inc., and Saint Luke's Hospital of Chillicothe f/k/a the Grand River Health System Corporation d/b/a Hedrick Medical Center, and Community Health Group, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

471 S.W.3d 703

Sally Boland, Sherri Lynn Harper, David C. Gann, Jennirae Littrell, Natural Daughter of Decedent Clarence Bailey Warner, Helen Pittman, Natural Sister of Decedent Shirley R. Eller, Appellants,

v.Saint Luke's Health System, Inc., and Saint Luke's Hospital of Chillicothe f/k/a the Grand River Health System Corporation d/b/a Hedrick Medical Center, and Community Health Group, Respondents.

No. SC 93906

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc .

Opinion issued August 18, 2015

Rehearing Denied October 27, 2015

Opinion Modified on Court's Own Motion October 27, 2015

The survivors were represented by Michael W. Manners, J. Kent Emison, Brett A. Emisonand Jessica M. Agnellyof Langdon & Emison in Lexington, (660) 259-6175; L. Annette Griggsand David L. McCollumof McCollum & Griggs in North Kansas City, (816) 474-0202; and Steven J. Streen, an attorney in Kansas City, (816) 842-3003.

The St. Luke's entities were represented by Adam S. Davis, Thomas W. Wagstaffand Christopher L. Schneiders of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP in Kansas City, (816) 701-1160. Community Health Group was represented by Scott M. Adamand Sean T. McGreveyof Adam & McDonald PA in Overland Park, Kansas, (913) 647-0670.

Opinion

Mary R. Russell, Judge

The issue on appeal here is whether the trial courts erred in entering judgments on the pleadings in five wrongful death lawsuits on the basis that the causes of action were time-barred by the three-year limitation in section 537.100.¹The plaintiffs argue the claims were not barred by the statute of limitation as the defendants intentionally and fraudulently concealed the tortious nature of the decedents' deaths. This Court finds that Frazee v. Partney,314 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. banc 1958), remains good law and reaffirms both its holdings that a wrongful death claim accrues at death and that courts may not add exceptions to a special statute of limitation. Accordingly, despite the harsh result, this Court is obligated to follow the mandate of the statute. The plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because the three-year statute of limitation had passed when the lawsuits were filed, and section 537.100 does not provide for delayed accrual or an exception for fraudulent concealment. The judgments of the trial courts are affirmed.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The circumstances of these cases are tragic and deeply concerning. This appeal arises from five separate but essentially identical wrongful death claims brought by Sally Boland, Sherri Lynn Harper, David C. Gann, Jennirae Littrell, and Helen Pittman (the plaintiffs) against Community Health Group, Saint Luke's Health Systems, Inc., and Saint Luke's Hospital of Chillicothe (collectively, “the hospital”). The cases are now consolidated before this Court. Because the trial courts entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the hospital, the following allegations of the plaintiffs are treated as admitted for purposes of this appeal. See Emerson Elec. Co. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos.,362 S.W.3d 7, 12 (Mo. banc 2012).

The plaintiffs all had family members die while being treated at Hedrick Medical Center in Chillicothe in 2002. Sally Boland's father died February 3, 2002. Sherri Lynn Harper's husband died March 22, 2002. David C. Gann's father died March 30, 2002. Jennirae Littrell's father died April 15, 2002. Helen Pittman's sister died March 9, 2002.

The petitions allege that Jennifer Hall, a former employee of the hospital, was responsible for the deaths. Specifically, the allegations are that over a period of time, Hall, a respiratory specialist, intentionally administered a lethal dose of succinylcholine

, insulin, and/or other medication that resulted in the death of each of the decedents.²Hall's actions are alleged to have caused at least nine suspicious deaths and 18 suspicious “codes,” which are medical emergencies, often involving cardiac arrestor the inability to breathe.

Further, the petitions allege that the hospital was aware of Hall's actions and acted affirmatively to conceal the suspicious nature of the deaths by: (1) threatening and coercing its employees to conceal information concerning Hall's actions; (2) failing to request autopsies so as to conceal the causes of death when there were several suspicious deaths; (3) informing or instructing its employees to notify patients' families that the causes of death were “natural” rather than due to Hall's actions; (4) disbanding committees put into place to evaluate codes and determine preventative measures; (5) failing to inform appropriate individuals and medical committees that had authority to act about Hall's behavior so that future harm by Hall could be prevented; (6) failing to investigate and/or monitor Hall when requested to do so by law enforcement; (7) removing patients' medical records so they were inaccessible to the patients' physicians; (8) discarding or failing to preserve crucial material evidence contained in Hall's locker regarding her misconduct; and (9) impeding law enforcement's investigation of Hall.

Dr. Cal Greenlaw was a physician working at the hospital during the relevant period. In February 2002, Dr. Greenlaw treated a patient in the emergency room who suddenly “coded” due to a cardiovascular collapse. He could not account for the patient's unusual blood sugar/insulin

events. He had previously become aware of two suspicious codes and resulting deaths prior to this incident and subsequently came to suspect that someone had been attempting to kill patients by injecting them with insulinor some other drug.

Dr. Greenlaw voiced these concerns to the hospital administration but was told by the hospital's director of nurses that there was no problem and not to discuss his suspicions further. Later, he told the hospital's administrator that he suspected Hall was intentionally killing patients at the hospital but was again told to abandon the matter for fear that the hospital's admissions would be jeopardized. However, he continued to gather evidence and, ultimately, became aware of 18 “code blues” and nine suspicious deaths at the hospital from February to May 2002 that occurred while Hall was on duty.

Aleta Boyd was a registered nurse and longtime employee of the hospital during the relevant period. She worked as the hospital's risk manager for internal events. In March 2002, she became aware of a dramatic increase in code blue events and deaths. She ultimately came to suspect that patients were intentionally being injected with insulin and/or other drugs and began an internal investigation. She concluded that Hall was the cause of the events and communicated the findings to the director of nursing and to the hospital's administrator. Boyd, however, was instructed to keep the matter confidential and not to involve anyone else. She continued to receive reports of code blue events and deaths, ultimately becoming aware of approximately 15 patients who either coded or died under suspicious circumstances in which Hall was listed in the patient's record. Boyd and other nurses finally met with the hospital administration and communicated a desire to alert the media if the hospital failed to stop Hall.

Hall was suspended and later fired in May 2002 after another patient died under suspicious circumstances. After Hall's suspension, a bottle of insulin was found in her locker, despite there being no reason for her to have insulin or to administer medication to patients. The suspicious codes and deaths apparently ceased once Hall was fired.

The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations ultimately investigated the events at the hospital and identified a number of “sentinel” events occurring during 2002. A sentinel event is defined as “an unexpected occurrence involving death or serious physical or psychological injury, or the risk thereof.” A health care provider is required to report such events to patients and their families. The plaintiffs, however, allege they were not notified of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of their family members until shortly before their petitions were filed.

The plaintiffs filed petitions against the hospital arguing they were entitled to damages under Missouri's wrongful death statute, section 537.080. The hospital filed motions for judgments on the pleadings, arguing that the claims were time-barred by section 537.100, the three-year wrongful death statute of limitation. The trial courts granted the hospital's motions. The plaintiffs appeal.³

II. Standard of Review

When reviewing the trial court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, this Court must determine “whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the face of the pleadings.” Emerson Elec. Co.,362 S.W.3d at 12. The judgments will be affirmed if the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs, considered by the court as admitted, demonstrate that they could not prevail under any legal theory. Id.

III. Statutory Provisions

Wrongful death in Missouri is statutory and has no common law antecedent. Sanders v. Ahmed,364 S.W.3d 195, 203 (Mo. banc 2012). Section 537.080 provides, in relevant part:

Whenever the death of a person results from any act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstance which, if death had not ensued, would have entitled such person to recover damages in respect thereof, the person or party who, or the corporation which, would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured....

A limitation period within which all wrongful death claims must be brought is found in section 537.100. It provides that “[e]very action instituted under section 537.080 shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action shall accrue.” Section 537.100 contains two exceptions to the statute of limitation: a tolling provision for defendants who abscond from the state to avoid personal service and a one-year savings provision if the plaintiff files a voluntary non-suit or the plaintiff...