Evans v. Conlee

• Decision Date: 28 August 1987
• Docket Number: No. 13-87-076-CV,13-87-076-CV
• Citation: 741 S.W.2d 504
• Parties: Christine Marie EVANS and Frank Evans, Appellants, v. Jack L. CONLEE, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 504

741 S.W.2d 504

Christine Marie EVANS and Frank Evans, Appellants, v. Jack L. CONLEE, et al., Appellees.

No. 13-87-076-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Corpus Christi.

Aug. 28, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1987.

Cage Wavell, Corpus Christi, for appellants.

R. Scott Fraley, Scott, Douglass, Luton, Austin, for appellees.

Before NYE, C.J., and KENNEDY and SEERDEN, JJ.

OPINION

NYE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted against a plaintiff in a medical malpractice suit. The trial court granted the summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations in Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i, § 10.01 (Vernon Supp.1987). We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a trial on the merits.

Appellant first consulted appellee doctor on May 14, 1981, because of non-malignant fibrocyctic masses in both of her breasts. On June 18, 1981, appellee performed a bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy on appellant. Apparently, when the bandages were removed after this first surgery, appellant's right nipple had sloughed off her breast. On September 14, 1981, appellee performed bilateral reconstruction surgery on appellant. Appellee continued to monitor appellant's progress until January 25, 1982, when appellee last saw appellant at his office. Appellant first filed suit regarding this treatment on July 19, 1985.

In her second amended petition, appellant alleged the following negligent acts by appellee:

a. In failing to take such care and precautions during the breast reconstruction as were necessary to prevent the scarring and disfigurement that resulted;

b. In failing to completely inform [appellant] of all the risks and hazards of doing the breast reconstruction, and explaining all her alternatives;

c. In failing to completely disclose to [appellant] all of the possible effects that her diabetes and smoking could have on the outcome of her breast reconstruction;

d. In continuing to represent to [appellant] that her breasts would improve and that her nipple would grow back in time.

Appellant also alleged that appellee owed her a duty of "continuing attention" which he breached by failing to "follow up with her or to advise her of what could be done to correct the deformity caused by her nipple sloughing off."

Appellee asserted his right to summary judgment based on Article 4590i, § 10.01. The doctor asserted the following timetable which his summary judgment proof supports:

                Breast Reconstruction Surgery        9/14/81
                Date of Last Treatment               1/25/82
                Statute Ran (at latest)              1/24/84
                Notice of Claim                      5/21/85
                Suit filed (first amended petition)  9/06/85
                

According to appellee, appellant's cause of action was barred because she did not file suit until four years after the reconstruction surgery and three years and eight months after the date he last treated her; that the results of the surgery were evident before the date of last treatment; and that she knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged wrong before the running of the statute in January, 1984.

Article 4590i, § 10.01, provides in relevant part, "Notwithstanding any other law, no health care liability claim may be commenced unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the subject of the claim ... is completed...." By enacting this provision, with its absolute two-year limitations period, the legislature abolished the discovery rule in cases governed by the act, Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985), subject to the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution. Neagle v. Nelson, 685 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Tex.1985); Tsai v. Wells, 725 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, Article 4590i, § 10.01, did not abolish fraudulent concealment as an equitable bar to the affirmative defense of limitations under that statute. Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex.1983); see also Del Rio v. Jinkins, 730 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1987, writ requested).

Fraudulent concealment is a specie of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. It works to bar a defendant from relying on the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to a claim where the defendant was under a duty to disclose the existence of a negligent act or injury to the wronged party, but concealed it. The physician-patient relationship imposes such a duty upon a physician. Thus, when a physician conceals a cause of action from a patient, the physician is estopped from relying on the defense of limitations until the patient learns of the cause of action or should have learned about it through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

The estoppel effect of fraudulent concealment ends when a patient becomes aware of facts, conditions, or circumstances which would cause a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry, which, if pursued would lead to discovery of the concealed cause of action. Knowledge of such facts is legally equivalent to knowledge of the cause of action.

In order to be entitled to a summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In reviewing a summary judgment, we must consider all evidence favorable to the non-movant as true, and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubt in favor of the non-movant. MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59, 60 (Tex.1986); Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex.1985); Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex.1984). When a defendant in a medical malpractice case moves for summary judgment based on the running of limitations, the defendant assumes the burden of showing that the suit is barred by limitations as a matter of law. Delgado v. Burns, 656 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex.1983). If the defense of limitations is conclusively established and the plaintiff resists the summary judgment by asserting the affirmative defense of fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff then has the burden to produce evidence which raises a fact issue with respect to fraudulent concealment. See Weaver v. Witt, 561 S.W.2d 792, 793 (Tex.1977); Nichols v. Smith, 507 S.W.2d 518, 521 (Tex.1974).

Appellant responded to the motion for summary judgment by alleging that her true condition was fraudulently concealed from her by appellee, and that she first became aware that she would not improve sometime in December, 1984. To support her response to the motion for summary judgment, appellant submitted her affidavit which states in relevant part:

Removal of the bandages from my right breast after the June surgery, but before the September surgery, revealed a lack of the right nipple which Dr. Conlee informed me would grow back in about six months. But it did not grow back and so I continued to contact Dr. Conlee's office about once every six weeks or so and was continually reassured that the nipple would grow back over time and not to worry. Around December, 1984, I was finally told that Dr. Conlee would no longer be in the office. At that time (Dec. 1984) I began to suspect that I had been given false information about my medical condition and so I decided to contact a lawyer.

To support his motion for summary judgment, appellee attached portions of appellant's deposition testimony in which she stated that appellee had told her the nipple would grow back "within about six months." She also stated that, sometime in August, 1981 (before the reconstruction surgery), she consulted another doctor because she was "insecure" about the nipple growing back. She recalled that doctor told her he was not normally involved with that kind of surgery, and could not tell her whether it would grow back or not. Appellant answered affirmatively when asked if she last saw appellee on January 25, 1982. When asked why she had not returned to see appellee thereafter, she replied: "I had tried calling to--within six weeks after that date because my breast condition continued to get worse, and I was told that he would no longer be in the office." ¹

Appellee doctor argues that appellant knew of facts which would have led a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry about the true nature of her unconcealed injuries. Appellee contends that this was conclusively established by the fact that appellant did make inquiry of another doctor about her insecure feeling. However, the evidence is undisputed that this other doctor could not confirm or deny the validity of appellee's representation.

Appellee points to appellant's deposition testimony in which she states that, approximately six weeks after her last office visit, January 25, 1982, she was told appellee would no longer be in his office. According to appellee, appellant should have known at that point that appellee had misled her and should have investigated further. Even if appellee did tell appellant that her nipple would grow back within six months, appellee argues that appellant knew this representation was not true by the time of the last office visit.

In her affidavit, appellant clearly, directly, and positively stated that she continued to contact and sought medical advice from appellee until December, 1984, when she was told that appellee would no longer be in the office. In her deposition, she testified that she continued to contact appellee until approximately six weeks after her last office visit. It is well settled that a deposition has no controlling effect over an affidavit and, if conflicting inferences may be drawn from the deposition and the affidavit of the same party, a fact issue is presented. Gaines v. Hamman, 163 Tex. 618, 358 S.W.2d 557, 562 (1962); Ramos v. Henry C. Beck Co., 711 S.W.2d 331, 335 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1986, no writ); Jones v. Hutchinson County, 615 S.W.2d 927, 930 n. 3 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1981, no writ); Proctor v....