Gomersall v. St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 19 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47664 |
| Citation | 483 P.3d 365,168 Idaho 308 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Greg GOMERSALL and Cyndi Gomersall, as The Guardians of the Minor Child W.G.G., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. LUKE'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LTD., an Idaho general nonprofit corporation, dba St. Luke's Boise Medical Center, Defendant-Respondent. |
Rossman Law Group, PLLC, Boise, for appellant. Eric S. Rossman argued.
Gjording Fouser PLLC, Boise, for respondent. Stephen L. Adams argued.
This appeal involves a constitutional challenge to Idaho Code section 5-230, the statute governing the time limitation for tort claims involving minor children. Greg and Cyndi Gomersall have brought this action on behalf of their minor child, W.G.G., claiming he received negligent medical treatment at St. Luke's Regional Medical Center (SLRMC) in Boise when he was injured in December 2010. W.G.G. was 6 years old at the time of the incident. The Gomersalls filed suit against SLRMC on January 25, 2019, more than eight years after W.G.G. was alleged to have been injured.
SLRMC moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Gomersalls’ medical malpractice action is time-barred under Idaho Code sections 5-219(4) and 5-230. The district court granted SLRMC's motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Gomersalls contend the district court erred because Idaho Code section 5-230 is unconstitutional. More specifically, they argue that section 5-230 violates W.G.G.’s due process and equal protection rights by failing to toll the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims until the age of majority. They also contend the district court erred when it held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not preclude SLRMC's statute of limitations defense. The Gomersalls timely appealed to this Court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of SLRMC.
W.G.G. was diagnosed with a rare metabolic disorder
at birth. Because individuals with this disorder face certain health risks, the Center on Human Development and Disability at the University of Washington provided the Gomersalls with an Emergency Care Letter. The Emergency Care Letter instructs medical providers to administer sodium bicarbonate if W.G.G. is acidotic.
On December 11, 2010, W.G.G. was admitted to the emergency department at SLRMC with various symptoms, including vomiting, diarrhea, and difficulty breathing. The Gomersalls provided SLRMC with the Emergency Care Letter, and the treating physician subsequently ordered a sodium bicarbonate infusion. However, there was a significant delay in administering the sodium bicarbonate. W.G.G. fell into a comatose state and suffered a hypoxic brain injury
. After W.G.G. was released from SLRMC on December 17, 2010, he began to suffer from a worsening gait, falls, muscle spasms, and slower speech. W.G.G. has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and suffers from severe cognitive and motor neurologic deficiencies.
It is undisputed that W.G.G., who was six years old at the time he was treated at SLRMC, suffered objectively ascertainable damage no later than January 3, 2011. The Medication Safety Coordinator at St. Luke's Health System sent a letter to the Gomersalls on that date apologizing for the delay in administering the sodium bicarbonate: "On behalf of St. Luke's, I would like to apologize for the delay in the dose of sodium bicarbonate [W.G.G.] experienced while in our hospital on December 11th." Additionally, the letter stated that SLRMC "will also be making adjustments to a portion of [W.G.G.’s] hospital bill."
Because W.G.G.’s medical bills are paid directly by Medicaid, the Gomersalls did not typically receive billing statements from W.G.G.’s medical providers. Nevertheless, the Gomersalls learned "many months" later that SLRMC did not make adjustments to W.G.G.’s hospital bill. According to the Gomersalls, this explains, in part, why they did not pursue a medical malpractice action on W.G.G.’s behalf more timely:
As we initially believed that our son had not suffered significant damage and because St. Luke's represented ... that our bill would be adjusted, in reliance on St. Luke's representation we significantly delayed seeking legal counsel or pursuing legal remedies on behalf of our son as we believed the matter would be resolved.
The Gomersalls filed a medical malpractice action against SLRMC on W.G.G.’s behalf on January 25, 2019—over eight years after W.G.G. suffered objectively ascertainable damage. In its answer, SLRMC denied many of the Gomersalls’ allegations. For the purpose of its motion for summary judgment, however, SLRMC accepted all the allegations as true.
The Gomersalls submitted three declarations in opposition to SLRMC's motion for summary judgment: (1) a declaration from Cyndi Gomersall; (2) a declaration from the Gomersalls’ attorney, Eric Rossman; and (3) a declaration from a psychologist, Daniel Reisberg, Ph.D. After determining the declarations from Rossman and Reisberg were not relevant, the district court declined to consider them when ruling on summary judgment. The district court also opined that some of the statements in Cyndi Gomersall's declaration did not comply with Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56 because they were conclusory. Nevertheless, the district court elected to consider the statements as true for the purpose of summary judgment because they were relevant to resolving the Gomersalls’ argument concerning equitable estoppel. The district court explained:
Under IRCP 56(e), if a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact, the court may give the party an opportunity to properly support or address the fact. Here, even if the [c]ourt were to grant Plaintiff[s] the opportunity to provide foundation for Ms. Gomersall's statement, Plaintiff[s’] equitable estoppel claim fails as a matter of law. Thus, rather than strike the statement, the [c]ourt will consider it as true and address the merits of the estoppel claim.
The district court rejected the Gomersalls’ argument that Idaho Code section 5-230 is unconstitutional. The district court also rejected the Gomersalls’ contention that the doctrine of equitable estoppel precluded SLRMC from asserting a statute of limitations defense. Hence, the district court held that the Gomersalls’ medical malpractice action was time-barred and granted SLRMC's motion for summary judgment. The Gomersalls timely appealed the district court's decision to this Court.
When reviewing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review that was employed by the trial court. Eldridge v. West , 166 Idaho 303, 308, 458 P.3d 172, 177 (2020) (citing La Bella Vita, LLC v. Shuler , 158 Idaho 799, 804–05, 353 P.3d 420, 425–26 (2015) ). "The court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(a). "This Court liberally construes all disputed facts in favor of the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences and conclusions supported by the record in favor of the party opposing the motion." Jackson v. Crow , 164 Idaho 806, 811, 436 P.3d 627, 632 (2019) (citing Chandler v. Hayden , 147 Idaho 765, 768, 215 P.3d 485, 488 (2009) ). A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient, however, to create a genuine issue of material fact. Eagle Springs Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Rodina , 165 Idaho 862, 868, 454 P.3d 504, 510 (2019) (quoting Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 164 Idaho 53, 56, 423 P.3d 1005, 1008 (2018) ). "If the evidence reveals no disputed issues of material fact, then only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review." Walsh v. Swapp Law, PLLC , 166 Idaho 629, 635, 462 P.3d 607, 613 (2020) (quoting Brooks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 164 Idaho 22, 27, 423 P.3d 443, 448 (2018) ).
When determining whether a statute is constitutional, this Court exercises de novo review. State v. Doe , 140 Idaho 271, 273, 92 P.3d 521, 523 (2004) (citing State v. Cobb , 132 Idaho 195, 197, 969 P.2d 244, 246 (1998) ). "It is generally presumed that legislative acts are constitutional, that the state legislature has acted within its constitutional powers, and any doubt concerning interpretation of a statute is to be resolved in favor of that which will render the statute constitutional." Walsh , 166 Idaho at 641, 462 P.3d at 619 (quoting Olsen v. J.A. Freeman Co. , 117 Idaho 706, 709, 791 P.2d 1285, 1288 (1990) ). "The party challenging a statute on constitutional grounds bears the burden of establishing that the statute is unconstitutional and ‘must overcome a strong presumption of validity.’ " Moon v. N. Idaho Farmers Ass'n , 140 Idaho 536, 540, 96 P.3d 637, 641 (2004) (quoting Olsen , 117 Idaho at 709, 791 P.2d at 1288 ). "The judicial power to declare legislative action invalid upon constitutional grounds is to be exercised only in clear cases." Id. (citing State ex rel. Brassey v. Hanson , 81 Idaho 403, 406, 342 P.2d 706, 709 (1959) ).
Before turning to the legal issues presented in this case, we begin by examining the connection between Idaho Code sections 5-219(4) and 5-230, since the relationship between these two statutes informs our subsequent analysis.
Idaho Code sections 5-219(4) and 5-230, when viewed together, effectively establish an eight-year limitations period for minor children under the age of ten to bring any type of professional malpractice action—including a medical malpractice action. Under Idaho Code section 5-219(4), a medical malpractice action must be commenced within two years after an objectively ascertainable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossow v. Jeppesen
...483 P.3d 365, 375 (2021). The analysis under the Idaho Constitution for equal protection mirrors the analysis under the federal constitution. Id. Court's equal protection analysis involves three steps: (1) identifying the classification under attack; (2) identifying the level of scrutiny un......