Frezell v. Iwersen
| Decision Date | 03 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-460,87-460 |
| Citation | 231 Neb. 365,436 N.W.2d 194 |
| Parties | Marcelyn M. FREZELL, Appellant, v. Frank J. IWERSEN, M.D., Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Limitations of Actions: Time: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the district court's judgment on the issue of the statute of limitations, the findings and decision of the district court will not be set aside unless clearly wrong. The point in time when the statute of limitations begins to run is determined by the facts of the individual case.
2. Limitations of Actions: Malpractice. In the context of the discovery rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the act of malpractice or the resulting injury.
3. Limitations of Actions: Malpractice. The continuous treatment doctrine applies when there has been either a misdiagnosis upon which incorrect treatment is given or when there has been a continuing course of negligent treatment. It does not apply when there have been only isolated acts of negligence.
4. Limitations of Actions: Fraud. One who wrongfully conceals material facts, which delays the filing of suit, cannot avail himself of the statute of limitations defense.
Joseph B. Muller and Ronald J. Palagi, Omaha, for appellant.
Robert M. Slovek and Thomas J. Shomaker, of Sodoro, Daly & Sodoro, Omaha, for appellee.
Marcelyn M. Frezell filed this malpractice action against Dr. Frank J. Iwersen on January 14, 1986. She alleged negligent treatment during her back surgery performed February 2, 1981, and continuing through her hospitalization, ending March 10, 1981. Dr. Iwersen denied any negligence and raised the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.
After a bench trial on the sole issue of the statute of limitations, the district court for Douglas County found: (1) The specific acts of negligence occurred on February 2, 1981; (2) the action was filed more than 2 years after the negligence occurred; (3) Frezell should have been aware of and should reasonably have discovered the basis for her cause of action more than 1 year before the filing of her petition; and (4) the action was barred by the statute of limitations, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-222 (Reissue 1985) or 44-2828 (Reissue 1988). We affirm.
The assignments of error claim the trial court erred in failing to find the 2-year statute of limitations did not apply due to the following: (1) the discovery rule exception, (2) the continuous treatment exception, and (3) the estoppel exception.
In January of 1973, Frezell injured her back at work. Because her employment required heavy lifting, she continued to aggravate the injury.
On January 29, 1981, a myelogram indicated a degenerative lumbar disk. Dr. Iwersen performed a surgical procedure called a hemilaminectomy on Frezell on February 2, 1981, to partially remove the disk. During the surgery, severe bleeding occurred and the wound was packed with Surgicel. Two Surgicel packs were left in the wound to control postoperative bleeding. Dr. Iwersen, in his deposition, admitted he had not used Surgicel prior to the Frezell surgery, he had not read any literature on the use of Surgicel, and he had since learned Surgicel was contraindicated for this type of surgery.
After the surgery, Frezell lost bladder control and developed severe pain and weakness in her legs. A postoperative consultation report indicated her new problems were partially caused by the use of Surgicel.
A second surgery was performed on February 5, 1981. During this surgery, a complete laminectomy in the same region was performed, and the Surgicel packs were removed.
Dr. Iwersen made the following findings in his operative report, dated February 5, 1981:
FINDINGS: There was evidence of compression of the cauda at the L4-L5 level due to Surgicel which had been placed in the wound for hemorrhage. This Surgicel was causing an actual tamponade of the cauda pressing the cord clear to the right side and nearly completely constricting it.
Dr. Iwersen treated Frezell for the pain, leg, and bladder problems through October 8, 1985. During that period, Frezell was hospitalized at least 16 times, primarily to give her relief from the severe pain.
During 1982, Dr. Gernon Longo, a urologist, also treated Frezell for her bladder problems. He testified he had informed Frezell that her bladder problems were permanent.
Dr. Iwersen's records show "To Whom It May Concern" letters (letters to insurance companies) summarized as follows:
February 11, 1981: "She has a definite neurological deficit in both lower extremities" and "will have some residuals."
May 18, 1981: She has shown "some improvement," but "I am sure it will be a November 24, 1981: "I do not feel too optimistic about much further return of function."
year from the time of her surgery before the patient will gain her maximum result."
June 8, 1983: "In the last year, the patient has shown no progress in her treatment and in my opinion is 100 percent permanently and totally disabled."
August 19, 1983:
Frezell contacted an attorney concerning a workers' compensation claim in 1981. He requested and received complete copies of Dr. Iwersen's records on November 2, 1981.
Frezell retained her current attorney in 1984 to assist her in obtaining Social Security disability benefits. He asked Dr. Iwersen for a letter describing the extent of her disability. Dr. Iwersen's letter, dated June 13, 1984, stated she was totally disabled. In 1984, her new attorney also requested and received complete copies of Dr. Iwersen's records.
Frezell contends that from February 1981 to June of 1985, Dr. Iwersen told her she would fully regain the use of her legs and control of her bladder, but that her recovery would take 5 years. Because of these statements, she felt she was only temporarily totally disabled, and she did not learn her condition was permanent until June 1985, during her hospitalization at the University of Nebraska Medical Center pain clinic.
In reviewing the district court's judgment on the issue of the statute of limitations, the findings and decision of the district court will not be set aside unless clearly wrong. Georgetowne Ltd. Part. v. Geotechnical Servs., 230 Neb. 22, 430 N.W.2d 34 (1988). The point in time when the statute of limitations begins to run is determined by the facts of the individual case. Hutmacher v. City of Mead, 230 Neb. 78, 430 N.W.2d 276 (1988).
This case is controlled by the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 44-2801 et seq. (Reissues 1984 & 1988). The act provides:
[A]ny action to recover damages based on alleged malpractice ... shall be commenced within two years next after the alleged act or omission ... except that if the cause of action is not discovered and could not be reasonably discovered within such two-year period, the action may be commenced within one year from the date of such discovery or from the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier.
§ 44-2828 (Reissue 1988).
The undisputed record shows that the alleged act or omission occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Risor v. Nebraska Boiler
...79. See Scott v. Pepsi Cola Co., 249 Neb. 60, 541 N.W.2d 49 (1995). 80. See id. 81. See id. 82. See id. 83. See Frezell v. Iwersen, 231 Neb. 365, 436 N.W.2d 194 (1989). 84. See, e.g., Miniero v. City of New York, 15 Misc.3d 432, 833 N.Y.S.2d 845 (2007). 85. Schurlknight, supra note 21, 352 ......
-
Bogue v. Gillis
...to the continuous treatment doctrine, the district court quoted the following language from our opinion in Frezell v. Iwersen , 231 Neb. 365, 369, 436 N.W.2d 194, 198 (1989) : "The continuous treatment doctrine applies when there has been either a misdiagnosis upon which incorrect treatment......
-
Central States Resources Corp. v. First Nat. Bank in Morrill, Neb.
...on the issue of statute of limitations normally will not be set aside by an appellate court unless clearly wrong. Frezell v. Iwersen, 231 Neb. 365, 436 N.W.2d 194 (1989); McCook Equity Exch. v. Cooperative Serv. Co., 230 Neb. 758, 433 N.W.2d 509 (1988). However, when reviewing a question of......
-
Thomas v. Countryside of Hastings, Inc.
...statute of limitations, the findings and decision of the district court will not be set aside unless clearly wrong. Frezell v. Iwersen, 231 Neb. 365, 436 N.W.2d 194 (1989); McCook Equity Exch. v. Cooperative Serv. Co., 230 Neb. 758, 433 N.W.2d 509 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The Thomases make nume......