Candelaria v. Karandikar

• Decision Date: 06 November 2020
• Docket Number: S-20-0066
• Citation: 475 P.3d 548
• Parties: Merry CANDELARIA, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Mahesh KARANDIKAR, M.D., Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

475 P.3d 548

Merry CANDELARIA, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Mahesh KARANDIKAR, M.D., Appellee (Defendant).

S-20-0066

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 6, 2020

Representing Appellant: Bernard Q. Phelan, Attorney at Law, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Scott P. Klosterman of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

DAVIS, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Merry Candelaria filed a complaint against Mahesh Karandikar, M.D., which alleged that he negligently treated her spinal condition. The district court found that her complaint was barred by the statute of limitations and granted Dr. Karandikar's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Ms. Candelaria presents a single issue on appeal, which we restate as:

Did the district court correctly rule on summary judgment that Ms. Candelaria's complaint against Dr. Karandikar was barred by the statute of limitations under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107 ?

FACTS

[¶3] Merry Candelaria began seeing Dr. Karandikar at Mountain View Regional Hospital in Casper in October 2013, and her treatment with him continued until March 16, 2016. During that time, he performed seven surgeries on her spine, several of which were done to repair or replace failing hardware. In the midst of these multiple surgeries, on April 28, 2015, Ms. Candelaria sought a second opinion from Dr. Timothy Wirt in Colorado. Concerning that consultation, she testified:

A. His first statement to me was, "I reviewed this." He said, "Your back is an absolute mess."

Q. Okay.

A. And I said, "Well, I understand that. That's why I came for a consult."

And he said to me that he would not – he said, "There's nothing I can do for you." He said, "Your back is just an absolute mess." He said, "I won't touch it."

Q. Okay.

A. He said, "It's too much to try to fix."

Q. Okay. And so did he make any other comments?

A. Yes. He stated to me that when I returned to Casper – he said, "You need to run as far as you can from him," he said, "because he's going to kill you before it's over."

Q. Okay.

A. He said, "He is doing this. You are just money to him."

[¶4] On her return, Ms. Candelaria contacted other surgeons in Casper, but none would see her, so she continued her care with Dr. Karandikar. Her final two surgeries with him were in January and February 2016. The January surgery was done to repair a dislodged rod and to re-fuse part of her spine. The February surgery was done to clean out an infection that developed in that same surgical wound.

[¶5] On March 15, 2016, Plaintiff saw Dr. Mark Dowell, an infectious disease specialist in Casper. Concerning that visit, she testified:

Q. Okay. And you saw him on March 15th, 2016. So that's the day before your last appointment with Dr. Karandikar?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. And when you met with him, I think you told me some things that he said. And I'd like to go back over that –

* * * *

Q. ... You mentioned to me that upon examination, he asked you, "Who did this to your back?"

A. Correct.

Q. And you said Dr. Karandikar, and he was swearing.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did he say to you that Dr. Karandikar had done something wrong?

A. He had stated to me that the washout was not done correctly because "If it would have been," he said, "you would not be here right now."

Q. Okay.

A. He said, "I would not have drained a liter and a half of infection out of your back."

Q. Did you conclude at that point that Dr. Karandikar had treated you inappropriately and committed malpractice?

A. Yeah. I had – yes. And I had thought that before I seen Dr. Dowell.

[¶6] On March 16, 2016, Ms. Candelaria saw Dr. Karandikar for the final time and terminated their doctor/patient relationship. On March 29, 2016, on referral from Dr. Dowell, she saw Dr. Clayton Turner, a surgeon with Advantage Orthopedics & Neurosurgery in Casper.

Q. Did Dr. Turner tell you that Dr. Karandikar had done something wrong?

A. He did not state a doctor's name. He just stated that the – he said, "I've never seen such a mess. What was he trying to do?"

And I said, "I can't answer that because I don't know."

He just used the term "he." He didn't state a name.

Q. Okay. So did you take that to mean Dr. Karandikar—

A. Yes.

* * * *

Q. So at this point, you felt, based upon what Dr. Wirt, Dr. Dowell, and Dr. Turner had said to you, that Dr. Karandikar had erred in his care –

A. Yes.

Q. – of you?

A. Mm-hmm.

[¶7] On March 12, 2018, Ms. Candelaria filed a claim against Dr. Karandikar with the Wyoming Medical Review Panel, and on May 22, 2018, the Panel dismissed her claim due to Dr. Karandikar's waiver of review. On June 29, 2018, she filed a complaint against Dr. Karandikar and Mountain View Regional Hospital, alleging that Dr. Karandikar did not meet the applicable standard of care in his performance of the surgeries on her and in her after care.¹

[¶8] Dr. Karandikar moved for summary judgment on the ground that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107.² The district court granted Dr. Karandikar's motion. It reasoned that Ms. Candelaria knew or had reason to know of her claim against Dr. Karandikar "when she visited Dr. Wirt in 2015, attempted to obtain second opinions from Casper Orthopedics and Wyoming Medical Center and visited Dr. Dowell regarding the infection in her back." The court then applied the continuous treatment rule, and based on that rule found that the statute of limitations began to run on March 16, 2016, the date of her last appointment with Dr. Karandikar.

[¶9] The parties agreed that the filing of the claim with the Medical Review Panel on March 12, 2018 tolled the running of the statute of limitations until thirty days after the Panel's dismissal order, or until June 21, 2018. The court then added the four days that Ms. Candelaria had remaining before filing with the panel and established June 25, 2018 as the date on which the limitations period expired. Because the complaint was not filed until June 29, 2018, the court concluded that it was untimely.

[¶10] Ms. Candelaria filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶11] Our review of a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo.

We review a district court's order granting summary judgment de novo and afford no deference to the district court's ruling. Thornock v. PacifiCorp , 2016 WY 93, ¶ 10, 379 P.3d 175, 179 (Wyo. 2016). This Court reviews the same materials and uses the same legal standard as the district court. Id . The record is assessed from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion ..., and we give a party opposing summary judgment the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. Id . A material fact is one that would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Id .

Varela v. Goshen County Fairgrounds , 2020 WY 124, ¶ 12, 472 P.3d 1047, 1052 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Kaufman v. Rural Health Dev., Inc. , 2019 WY 62, ¶ 15, 442 P.3d 303, 308 (Wyo. 2019) ).

[¶12] With respect to the application of a statute of limitations, we have said that "[i]f the material facts are in dispute, the application of a statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact; otherwise, it is a question of law." Estate of Weeks by and through Rehm v. Weeks-Rohner , 2018 WY 112, ¶ 30, 427 P.3d 729, 737 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Carnahan v. Lewis , 2012 WY 45, ¶ 27, 273 P.3d 1065, 1073 (Wyo. 2012) ). This appeal also presents a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Life Care Center of Casper v. Barrett , 2020 WY 57, ¶ 12, 462 P.3d 894, 898 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Sullivan v. State , 2019 WY 71, ¶ 7, 444 P.3d 1257, 1259 (Wyo. 2019) ).

DISCUSSION

[¶13] Generally, a medical malpractice claim must be brought within two years of the date of the alleged act, error, or omission. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2019). The statute provides as follows in relevant part:

(a) A cause of action arising from an act, error or omission in the rendering of licensed or certified professional or health care services shall be brought within the greater of the following times:

(i) Within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error or omission, except that a cause of action may be instituted not more than two (2) years after discovery of the alleged act, error or omission, if the claimant can establish that the alleged act, error or omission was:

(A) Not reasonably discoverable within a two (2) year period; or (B) The claimant failed to discover the alleged act, error or omission within the two (2) year period despite the exercise of due diligence.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-107(a).

[¶14] The exceptions found in subsection 107(a)(i)(A) and (B) incorporate the discovery rule, meaning that if the exceptions apply, the statute of limitations is triggered under them when a claimant knows or has reason to know of his or her cause of action. Pioneer Homestead Apartments III v. Sargent Engineers, Inc. , 2018 WY 80, ¶ 17, 421 P.3d 1074, 1079 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Adelizzi v. Stratton , 2010 WY 148, ¶ 16, 243 P.3d 563, 567 (Wyo. 2010) ; Robert L. Kroenlein Trust v. Kirchhefer , 2015 WY 127, ¶ 16, 357 P.3d 1118, 1124 (Wyo. 2015) ). We have also adopted the continuous treatment rule, which provides that "where the defendant physician has provided a continuing course of care for the same or related complaints, the cessation of treatment completes the ‘act’ which starts the running of the statutory period for filing suit." Nobles v. Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County , 2013 WY 66, ¶ 18, 301 P.3d 517, 522 (Wyo. 2013) (quoting Metzger v. Kalke , 709 P.2d 414, 417 (Wyo. 1985) ).

[¶15] The parties agree that the continuous treatment rule applies, and that under that rule, March 16, 2016 (the date that Dr. Karandikar last treated Ms. Candelaria) was the date of the alleged act, error, or omission. Ms. Candelaria contends, however, that...