Fojut v. Stafl, 96-1676
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
| Citation | 569 N.W.2d 737,212 Wis.2d 827 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1676,96-1676 |
| Parties | Helen FOJUT and Bruce Fojut, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Adolf STAFL, M.D., Medical College of Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, Defendants-Respondents, Milwaukee County Medical Complex, ABC Insurance Company, and DEF Insurance Company, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 12 August 1997 |
Page 737
v.
Adolf STAFL, M.D., Medical College of Wisconsin, and
Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, Defendants-Respondents,
Milwaukee County Medical Complex, ABC Insurance Company, and
DEF Insurance Company, Defendants.
Opinion Released Aug. 12, 1997.
Opinion Filed Aug. 12, 1997.
Page 738
[212 Wis.2d 828] On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of O'Connor & Willems, S.C. by Robert I. DuMez of Kenosha.
On behalf of the defendants-respondents Adolf Stafl, M.D. and Medical College of Wisconsin, the cause was submitted on the brief of Hinshaw & Culbertson by Michael J. Pfau of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, the cause was submitted on the brief of Schellinger & Doyle, S.C. by James M. Fergal and Linda V. Meagher of Brookfield.
Before WEDEMEYER, P.J., and FINE and CURLEY, JJ.
WEDEMEYER, Presiding Judge.
Helen and Bruce Fojut appeal from judgments entered dismissing their complaint against Adolf Stafl, M.D., the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund. The Fojuts argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their claim on the basis that [212 Wis.2d 829] it was barred by the statute of limitations. Because the trial court did not err, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1990, Helen underwent elective bilateral tubal ligation surgery, which Dr. Stafl supervised. Helen did so because she did not want to become pregnant. Sometime in March 1991, Helen became pregnant. On April 9, 1991, Helen missed her menstrual period. On April 24, 1991, Helen took a pregnancy test and discovered that she was pregnant. On April 22, 1994, the Fojuts filed their complaint alleging medical malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that the statute of limitations had expired. The trial court granted the motion. The Fojuts now appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
The Fojuts argue that the three year statute of limitations began to run from the date Helen discovered she was pregnant-April 24, 1991, and therefore, the complaint was timely filed. The defendants argue that the statute of limitations began to run either from the date of the tubal ligation or the date of conception, which made the Fojuts' complaint untimely. The trial court agreed with the defendants.
The issue in this case is when the Fojuts' cause of action accrued so as to commence the running of the statute of limitations. Deciding this issue involves interpretation of § 893.55(1), STATS., the statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice cases. Interpretation of a statute to an undisputed set of facts is a question of law that we review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Genrich v. Ohic Ins. Co., 2007AP541.
...the claims would not expire until August 13, 2006. ¶ 6 The circuit court granted OHIC's motion, concluding that, under Fojut v. Stafl, 212 Wis.2d 827, 569 N.W.2d 737 (Ct. App.1997), Robert suffered an "injury" triggering the statute of limitations no later than August 8, 2003, when the seco......
-
Paul v. Skemp
...case where the malpractice and the injury have not been coincidental decided by the court of appeals, Fojut v. Stafl, 212 Wis. 2d 827, 569 N.W.2d 737 (Ct. App. 1997). In Fojut, Helen Fojut had a tubal ligation to prevent further pregnancies; subsequently, she became pregnant. Id. at 829. Th......
-
Doe v. Mayo Clinic Health System-Eau Claire Clinic, Inc.
...injury. OHIC argued that the date of injury began when Genrich first suffered a “physical injurious change,” relying on Fojut v. Stafl, 212 Wis.2d 827, 569 N.W.2d 737 (Ct.App.1997). The estate responded that Genrich's injury did not occur until his condition was irreversible—at the earliest......
-
Doe v. Mayo Clinic Health System—Eau Claire Clinic, Inc.
...(physical injurious change was when blood vessel ruptured ); when the negligent conduct was a failed tubal ligation, see Fojut v. Stafl, 212 Wis.2d 827, 569 N.W.2d 737 (Ct.App.1997) (physical injurious change was the moment of conception), and when a foreign object was left in the patient d......