Cheever v. Southern New Hampshire Regional Medical Center, No. 95-576

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Writing for the Court: JOHNSON
• Citation: 688 A.2d 565,141 N.H. 589
• Parties: Lynne CHEEVER, Administrator of the Estate of Cory Cheever v. SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER and another.
• Docket Number: No. 95-576
• Decision Date: 28 January 1997

Page 565

688 A.2d 565 141 N.H. 589 Lynne CHEEVER, Administrator of the Estate of Cory Cheever
v.
SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER and another. No. 95-576. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Jan. 28, 1997.

Page 566

Normand & Shaughnessy, P.A., Manchester (Brian C. Shaughnessy on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.

Sulloway & Hollis, Concord (Martin L. Gross and Sarah G. Smith on the brief, and Mr. Gross orally), for defendant Southern New Hampshire Regional Medical Center.

Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Chiesa, Manchester (Gregory G. Peters and Lee R. Allman on the brief, and Mr. Allman orally), for defendant Arthur Ansdell, M.D.

[141 N.H. 590] JOHNSON, Justice.

The plaintiff, Lynne Cheever, administrator of the estate of Cory Cheever, appeals the order of the Superior Court (Arnold, J.) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff's action is time-barred. We affirm.

In the early morning hours of April 7, 1989, Lynne Cheever, then twenty-seven weeks pregnant, was admitted to defendant Southern New Hampshire Regional Medical Center on the advice of her treating physician, defendant Arthur Ansdell. She was experiencing contractions, cramping, and bleeding. At the hospital, Mrs. Cheever was administered a series of drugs in an attempt to stop labor. Mrs. Cheever's contractions continued, however, and she delivered a child, Cory Cheever (the decedent), at 5:49 a.m. The parties agree that the child died later that morning, and that the plaintiff filed a writ of summons on March 31, 1995. The writ alleged that both defendants were negligent in the care and treatment provided to the decedent on April 7. See RSA 556:12 (1974). The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, arguing that the action was time-barred because RSA 556:11 (Supp.1996) provides for a three-year statute of limitations period. The plaintiff objected, arguing that her action is not barred because RSA 556:11 provides for a six-year statute of limitations for wrongful death actions. The superior court granted the defendants' motions, and this appeal followed.

The parties dispute what is the appropriate statute of limitations period applicable to this case. RSA 556:11, which governs wrongful death actions, states: "If an action is not then pending, one may be brought for such cause at any time within 6 years after the death of the deceased party, subject to the provisions of RSA 508." The pertinent section of RSA chapter 508 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, all personal actions, except actions for slander or libel, may be brought only within 3 years of the act or omission complained of." RSA 508:4 (Supp.1996). The plaintiff argues that RSA 556:11 provides a six-year statute of limitations period for wrongful death actions, while the defendants read the "subject to the provisions of RSA 508" language to mandate a three-year limit. The superior court found in favor of the defendants, holding that...