Giulietti v. Oncology Associates of Oregon
Decision Date | 05 December 2001 |
Citation | 36 P.3d 510,178 Or. App. 260 |
Parties | James GIULIETTI, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce Giulietti, Appellant, v. ONCOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF OREGON, P.C., individually and dba Willamette Valley Cancer Center, and Gary L. Lee, M.D., Respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Ron D. Ferguson, Tualatin, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Lindsey Hughes, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Richard A. Roseta, Thomas A. Ped, and Brown, Roseta, Long, McConville, Kilcullen & Carlson, Eugene.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and KISTLER, Judges.
Plaintiff appeals after the trial court granted defendants' ORCP 21 A motion and dismissed his medical malpractice action on the ground that it was not brought within the statute of limitations. Plaintiff contends that defendants' failure to comply with UTCR 5.010(1), requiring a moving party to confer with the opposing party before filing a motion, should have resulted in the denial of defendants' motion. Alternatively, he contends that the action was commenced within the statutory limitation period for this action under ORS 30.075. We reverse and remand.
Plaintiff James Giulietti is the personal representative of the decedent, Joyce Giulietti (Joyce). Joyce received a chemotherapy treatment from defendants on November 5, 1997. Complications arose from the treatment, and two days later Joyce complained of pain and discomfort in her hand. On November 17, 12 days after the treatment, another doctor diagnosed her condition as a reaction to the administration of the chemotherapy—in essence, a chemotherapy burn. Joyce was treated for the burn and incurred medical bills and other costs. She died on April 27, 1999, from the cancer that had necessitated the chemotherapy.
As personal representative of Joyce's estate, plaintiff filed this action on May 1, 2000, approximately two-and-a-half years after defendants' treatment and more than one year after Joyce's death. Defendants filed an ORCP 21 A motion to dismiss, arguing that the action was filed after the two-year time limitation provided by ORS 12.110(4). Defendants did not confer with plaintiff's counsel, and no certificate of compliance was filed. UTCR 5.010(1) Plaintiff opposed the motion, relying on defendants' failure under UTCR 5.010(1) and on the three-year limitation provided by ORS 30.075. The court granted the motion, and plaintiff appeals.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that UTCR 5.010(1)1 required the court to deny the ORCP 21 A motion because of the failure to confer. Defendants respond, however, that compliance with the rule would have been futile and that, even if the motion should have been denied, any error was harmless because defendants simply would have conferred with plaintiff and then filed the same motion again. On appeal, plaintiff agrees that a remand on the UTCR issue is not necessary unless plaintiff's action is determined to be not timely. We accept that concession and turn to the merits of the ruling on the ORCP 21 A motion.
Four statutes are relevant to our inquiry, each of which purports to affect the timeliness of plaintiff's action. ORS 12.110 establishes a period of limitation for actions for professional malpractice generally. It provides, in part:
ORS 12.010 provides:
"Actions shall only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this chapter, after the cause of action shall have accrued, except where a different limitation is prescribed by statute."
Two other relevant statutes purport to provide for different periods of time in the case of the death of an injured party. ORS 12.190 provides, in part:
"If a person entitled to bring an action dies before the expiration of the time limited for its commencement, an action may be commenced by the personal representative of the person after the expiration of that time, and within one year after the death of the person."
ORS 30.075(1) provides, in part:
(Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff contends that ORS 12.190 and ORS 30.075 are inconsistent and that the applicable statute of limitation is ORS 30.075 instead of ORS 12.190 because it is more specific to personal injury actions. Defendants, on the other hand, assert that the statutes can be reconciled by requiring plaintiff to comply with both. Under that interpretation, plaintiff's action is untimely because it was brought more than one year after Joyce's death.
Our task is to determine the legislature's intent as to which statute should control. We turn first to the text and context of the relevant statutes. ORS 12.110 is phrased in mandatory language, providing that an action "shall be commenced" within two years. The beginning of the time period under ORS 12.110 is either the discovery of the injury or the date it should have been discovered. Had Joyce lived, ORS 12.110 would have controlled, and her action, brought more than two years after she was told that the treatment had burned her, would have been barred by the statute.
The question then becomes what effect Joyce's death had on the period of time within which to bring the action. ORS 12.190 and ORS 30.075 both purport to apply to the situation in which the plaintiff dies and the plaintiff's personal representative commences the action. ORS 12.190 provides that a personal representative may commence an action on behalf of a deceased person within one year after the death, even if that year extends past the period of limitations that would have applied to the decedent's own action. ORS 30.075 provides that, in personal injury actions brought after the death of the injured person, if the injured person commenced the action (by filing the complaint) within the statute of limitations, then the personal representative can continue the action. In the alternative, if the injured person has not commenced the action before death, the personal representative shall commence the action "within three years." In our view, ORS 12.010 resolves the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., Corp.
...decision that ORS 30.075(1) is a “statute providing a limitation on the commencement of an action,” Giulietti v. Oncology Associates of Oregon, 178 Or.App. 260, 36 P.3d 510 (2001), the court held that ORS 30.075(1) fell within the scope of the notwithstanding clause of ORS 30.275(9). On rev......
-
Bell v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon
...346 Or. 160, 171–72, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009). That task is, at least initially, informed by our analysis in Giulietti v. Oncology Associates of Oregon, 178 Or.App. 260, 36 P.3d 510 (2001). In Giulietti, the decedent was allegedly injured during a chemotherapy treatment administered by the defe......
-
Calhoon v. Thierolf
...runs for two years from "either the discovery of the injury or the date it should have been discovered." Guiletti v. Oncology Assoc. of Oregon, P.C., 178 Or. App. 260, 264 (2001). Plaintiff contends that he did not discover the injury until 2018 and initiated this action within two years of......
-
Gilliam v. DMV
... ... OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Driver and Motor Vehicles Services Branch ... ...