Harrison v. Schrader

• Decision Date: 15 May 1978
• Citation: 569 S.W.2d 822
• Parties: Carmen D. HARRISON and wife, Louise Harrison, Appellants, v. Alfred L. SCHRADER, Appellee, and State of Tennessee, Intervenor-Appellee.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 822

569 S.W.2d 822

Carmen D. HARRISON and wife, Louise Harrison, Appellants, v. Alfred L. SCHRADER, Appellee, and State of Tennessee,

Intervenor-Appellee.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 15, 1978.

Lloyd C. McDougal, III, James F. Schaeffer, Schaeffer & McDougal, Memphis, for appellants.

John R. Moss, Moss & Benton & Wallis, Jackson, for appellee.

Brooks McLemore, Jr., Atty. Gen., C. Hayes Cooney, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Nashville, for intervenor-appellee.

OPINION

HENRY, Chief Justice.

This malpractice action raises the question of the constitutionality of Section 23-3415(a), T.C.A., the statute of limitations provision of the Medical Malpractice Review Board and Claims Act of 1975. More specifically, the appellants assert that this section violates the equal protection guaranties of both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions and deprives them of the right to redress of injury secured by our state constitution.

The complaint states that, after performing a vasectomy upon Mr. Harrison in 1972, the appellee, Dr. Schrader, informed him that as a result of the operation he would be sterile. On December 18, 1975, however, Harrison, to his consternation and her dismay, learned that his wife was pregnant. A second physician was consulted, and tests revealed that Harrison was not sterile. On July 29, 1976, he underwent a second vasectomy, during which it was discovered that the first surgery had been negligently performed. This action, brought by Harrison and his wife and based upon common-law negligence and breach of contract, was filed on September 22, 1976.

The appellee moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it had been filed more than three years after the alleged negligent act or omission and was, therefore, barred by Section 23-3415, T.C.A. In response, the appellants attacked the constitutionality of the Medical Malpractice Review Board Act, particularly the Act's statute of limitations, and, pursuant to Rule 24.04, T.R.C.P., gave notice to the Attorney General that the statute's validity was being questioned.

Upon intervention by the Attorney General and oral argument on the motion, the trial court entered an order holding "that T.C.A. 23-3415 does not violate the Constitutions of the State of Tennessee or of the United States of America, and that this action is therefore barred by the three-year provision of said statute and should be dismissed."

I.

Section 23-3415(a) reads as follows:

23-3415. Statute of limitations Exceptions. (a) The statute of limitations in malpractice actions shall be one (1) year as set forth in § 28-304; provided, however, that in the event the alleged injury is not discovered within the said one (1) year period, the period of limitation shall be one (1) year from the date of such discovery; provided further, however, that In no event shall any such action be brought more than three (3) years after the date on which the negligent act or omission occurred except where there is fraudulent concealment on the part of the defendant in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after discovery that the cause of action exists; and provided still further that the time limitation herein set forth shall not apply in cases where a foreign object has been negligently left in a patient's body in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after the alleged injury or wrongful act is discovered or should have been discovered. (Emphasis supplied.)

This enactment was passed as a part of Chapter 299, Public Acts of 1975, designed by the legislature to meet the so-called "medical malpractice crisis" of the late 1960's and early 1970's. On its face, the section recognized the applicability of the general statute of limitations (Sec. 28- 304, T.C.A.) and the rule, first stated by this Court in Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn.1974), that in malpractice actions the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the injury is, or should have been, discovered. The legislature, however, proceeded to place an absolute three-year limit upon the time within which malpractice actions, with two exceptions, could be brought. It is this limit, applicable only in medical malpractice actions, that appellants challenge as unconstitutional. ¹

It should be noted at the outset that this is not a conventional statute of limitations. Rather it is an outer limit or ceiling superimposed upon the existing statute (Sec. 28-304, T.C.A.). Suits must be brought within one year from and after the date of the injury or damage, or the date such injury or damage was discovered, subject to the three-year ceiling fixed by Sec. 23-3415(a). See Watts v. Putnam County, 525 S.W.2d 488 (Tenn.1975).

II.

Appellants attack the statute on two grounds. In their first assignment of error, they assert that Section 23-3415 denies them, and other individuals similarly situated equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article XI, Sec. 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. ²

They argue that the statute applies only to a certain class of individuals, "health care providers," offering them a favored status under the law and creating an arbitrary and unreasonable classification. This, they assert, is contrary to the general statute of limitation applicable to personal injury actions, as set forth in Section 28-304, T.C.A. ³

An initial problem to be faced in determining whether a statute of limitations applying only in the case of "health care providers" constitutes a denial of equal protection is the question of what standard of review must be utilized in ascertaining the statute's constitutionality.

In their brief, appellants assert that "(t)his favored status enjoyed by physicians, or the other side of the coin, the disfavored status suffered by victims of physicians, must be subjected to Careful scrutiny." (Emphasis supplied.) If by this statement appellants urge that we adopt a test of strict scrutiny, we must refuse to do so.

A classification will be subject to strict scrutiny only when it impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right (e. g., voting, interstate travel) or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class (e. g., alienage, race). San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). Neither of these factors is present here.

All other classifications have generally been subjected to the rational basis test. ⁴ Under this standard, if some reasonable basis can be found for the classification, or if any state of facts may reasonably be conceived to justify it, the classification will be upheld. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961).

As recently reiterated by the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 314, 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2567, 49 L.Ed.2d 520, 525 (1976), the classification will be upheld if it "rationally furthers the purpose identified by the State."

This inquiry employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court's awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary. (Citation omitted.) Such action by a legislature is presumed to be valid. Id.

In determining the validity of a classification under Art. XI, Sec. 8 of our state constitution, a similar test has been applied. As stated by the Court in City of Chattanooga v. Harris, 223 Tenn. 51, 56-57, 442 S.W.2d 602, 604 (1969),

(i)t is elemental in our law that the keystone in determining the constitutionality of a statute under this Section of the Constitution is reasonableness of classification.

The test to be applied has been set forth in numerous cases. The classification must rest upon a reasonable basis. If it has a reasonable basis, it is not unconstitutional merely because it results in some inequality. Reasonableness depends upon the facts of the case and no general rule can be formulated for its determination. Estrin v. Moss, 221 Tenn. 657, 430 S.W.2d 345 (1968); Motlow v. State, 125 Tenn. 547, 145 S.W. 177 (1912).

The burden of showing that a classification is unreasonable and arbitrary is placed upon the individual challenging the statute; and if any state of facts can reasonably be conceived to justify the classification or if the reasonableness of the class is fairly debatable, the statute must be upheld. Swain v. State, 527 S.W.2d 119 (Tenn.1975); Estrin, supra; Phillips v. State, 202 Tenn. 402, 304 S.W.2d 614 (1957).

Before the classification will be held to violate the equal protection guaranty, it must be shown that it has no reasonable or natural relation to the legislative objective. City of Chattanooga, supra; Phillips, supra. In addition, the statute must apply alike to all who fall within, or can reasonably be brought within the classification. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Vogue Inc., 54 Tenn.App. 624, 393 S.W.2d 164 (1965).

In the case of Dobbins v. Terrazzo Machine & Supply Co., 479 S.W.2d 806 (Tenn.1972), this Court, in the course of deciding whether the time for instituting suit was governed by Sec. 28-304, T.C.A., or Sec. 50-914, was faced with an argument similar to that advanced here. Rejecting the defendant's contention that the classification employed violated Art. XI, Sec. 8, the Court stated:

At the time of passage of the statutes in question here there was indubitably a valid reason for the distinction made with respect to maturity of a cause of action as between those persons within the ambit of the Workmen's Compensation law and other persons. 479 S.W.2d at 810.

Applying the standard of review used under the federal and state constitutions, we cannot say that there was no reasonable or...