Hill v. Milani
| Decision Date | 13 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3612,C-3612 |
| Citation | 686 S.W.2d 610 |
| Parties | Wiley E. HILL, Petitioner, v. Dr. John C. MILANI, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Gibbins, Burrow & Bratton, R. Louis Bratton, Austin, for petitioner.
Pierre A. Kleff, Jr., Killeen, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment construing the two-year limitations provision of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i § 10.01 (Vernon Supp.1985).
On August 24, 1980, Wiley E. Hill was bitten by a rattlesnake and treated by Dr. John C. Milani, Jr. Hill filed suit on November 2, 1982, alleging that Dr. Milani was negligent in treating the snakebite. Dr. Milani moved for summary judgment, alleging that Hill's action was barred by limitations.
At the summary judgment hearing, argument focused on the question of whether Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5537 (Vernon 1958) tolled the limitations period while Dr. Milani was absent from the state. The judgment, in fact, recites a stipulation that the interaction of art. 5537 and art. 4590i § 10.01 was the sole issue in dispute. This stipulation was facially valid as a Rule 11 agreement, under this court's decision in City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 677 (Tex.1979), and its validity is not questioned by point of error in this court. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 11. In view of this stipulation, the trial court declined to consider, on motion for rehearing of the summary judgment, the new question of whether the limitations period was tolled for a period of 75 days by the timely sending of a notice letter. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i § 4.01(a), (c) (Vernon Supp.1985). Petitioner does not complain of this action.
The sole issue thus presented for this court's consideration is whether the tolling provision of art. 5537 affects the two-year limitation provision of art. 4590i § 10.01. The trial court held that it does not, and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. 678 S.W.2d 203. We affirm the judgments of the courts below.
(emphasis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Etessam, 05-83-01185-CV
...we note that the Texas Supreme Court recently addressed the application of the medical malpractice limitations provision in Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.1985). In Hill, the Texas Supreme Court decided the narrow issue that article 5537, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. (Vernon 1958), did not to......
-
Waters ex rel. Walton v. Del-Ky, Inc.
...Remedies Code tolls the limitations period for twelve months. The language of section 10.01 is clear and exclusive. See Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex.1985). The Act contains the only tolling provisions that suspend the absolute two-year bar: minority and timely notice. TEX.REV.CI......
-
Hyson v. Chilkewitz
...statute of limitations for the period of the person's absence. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 16.063. In Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex.1985), the supreme court held that provision is inapplicable in a medical malpractice case because of the restrictive language of section ......
-
Brewster v. Columbia Med. Center, Mckinney
...of limitations) (decided under the Statute's predecessor, former Article 4590i of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes); Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985) (TEX.REV.CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 5537 did not toll health care claims' statute of limitations while doctor was absent from 5. The......