Echols v. Keeler, 86-242
| Decision Date | 17 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-242,86-242 |
| Citation | 735 P.2d 730 |
| Parties | Clarence ECHOLS, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Dr. R.D. KEELER, Appellee (Defendant). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
David A. Scott of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, signed the brief of appellee and presented oral argument.
Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.
This is a medical malpractice case. The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint for the reason that the claim stated therein was barred by the statute of limitations.
We affirm.
On August 27, 1981, appellant injured his back at work. On September 11, 1981, he sought treatment from appellee, Dr. Keeler, a chiropractor. Dr. Keeler took X rays of the cervical and lumbar areas of appellant's back and performed "adjustments" intended to relieve appellant's pain. Appellant returned for treatment several times after the initial visit and further "adjustments" were administered by Dr. Keeler. On September 28, 1981, during appellant's seventh visit, Dr. Keeler observed that appellant was experiencing pain in the thoracic area of his back which "appeared to be progressing." Dr. Keeler took X rays of the thoracic area which revealed a "compression fracture of the T12 vertebrae" and "deterioration of T7-T8 disc space." On October 6, 1981, Dr. Keeler referred appellant to an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Landon, for further evaluation. After October 6, 1981, appellant had no further contact with Dr. Keeler.
On October 22, 1981, appellant was hospitalized for neurogenic bladder, which is defined as "defective functioning of bladder due to impaired innervation." Stedman's Medical Dictionary (5th Ed.1982). He was referred to Dr. Cole who examined appellant and referred him to Dr. Gordy, a neurosurgeon, who immediately performed surgery upon appellant's back. Tissue samples obtained during the surgery revealed On May 8, 1985, approximately three and one-half years after he had last been seen by Dr. Keeler, appellant filed a malpractice action against Dr. Keeler alleging negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of his back injury. At the time the action was filed, appellant was still being treated by Drs. Cole, Lyford, Bailey and Landon. On August 12, 1986, the district court dismissed appellant's complaint, finding that it was barred by the statute of limitations.
a bacterial infection in appellant's spine. After the surgery, appellant was treated by Dr. Landon and two other specialists, Dr. Bailey and Dr. Lyford, for the damage caused by the infection, which included impairment of the functioning of appellant's legs and bladder.
Appellant contends that he is receiving a continuous course of treatment from Drs. Keeler, Landon, Cole, Lyford, and Bailey for the same injury which is the subject of this action and that, therefore, the two-year statute of limitations had not run at the time of filing his complaint. Section 1-3-107, W.S.1977, prescribes the limitation period for bringing a medical malpractice action. In pertinent part the statute provides:
"Termination" of treatment has reference to the practitioner against whom claim is made. We identified the following rationale underlying the continuous treatment rule:
" '[I]n the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruske v. Hille
...defendant doctor only imputed to defendant if agency relationship or "some other significant continuing nexus" exists); Echols v. Keeler, 735 P.2d 730, 732 (Wyo.1987)(finding determinative that plaintiff patient treated with another doctor and defendant doctor was not involved in subsequent......
-
Parr v. Rosenthal
...patient]'s progress” and exercised “control over the treatment of [the patient] by the other health-care providers”); Echols v. Keeler , 735 P.2d 730, 732 (Wyo.1987) (continuing care doctrine did not apply where allegedly negligent doctor did “not continue as [the patient's] doctor nor was ......
-
Parr v. Rosenthal
...or master-servant relationship, particularly where the defendant had nothing more to do with patient's care); Echols v. Keeler, 735 P.2d 730, 732 (Wyo.1987) (explaining that continuing care cannot be imputed to the original doctor when the patient is referred to another doctor and the alleg......
-
Nobles v. Mem'l Hosp. of Laramie Cnty.
...citations omitted). Since Metzger, we have applied the continuous treatment rule in at least three other decisions. Echols v. Keeler, 735 P.2d 730, 731–32 (Wyo.1987); Sharsmith v. Hill, 764 P.2d 667, 669–71 (Wyo.1988); and Jauregui v. Memorial Hospital, 2005 WY 59, ¶¶ 9–15, 111 P.3d 914, 91......