Iverson v. Lancaster

• Decision Date: 25 April 1968
• Docket Number: Nos. 8469,8470,s. 8469
• Citation: 158 N.W.2d 507
• Parties: Florence J. IVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. E. G. LANCASTER, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic, Fargo, North Dakota, Defendants and Respondents. Howard IVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. E. G. LANCASTER, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic, Fargo, North Dakota, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 507

158 N.W.2d 507

Florence J. IVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. E. G. LANCASTER, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic, Fargo, North

Dakota, Defendants and Respondents.

Howard IVERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. W. E. G. LANCASTER, M.D., and the Fargo Clinic, Fargo, North

Dakota, Defendants and Respondents.

Nos. 8469, 8470.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

April 25, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The limitation period commences to run against a malpractice action from the time the act of malpractice with resulting injury is, or by reasonable diligence could be, discovered.

2. Unless one is named as an adverse party or is an officer, director, superintendent, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party, he may not be examined as an adverse party unless his conduct gave rise to the cause of action.

3. Before a party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading questions, a showing must be made that the witness is hostile because of clear alignment of interest with the other party or because of antagonism directed to the calling party, either or both to be weighed by the traditional concept of prejudice.

4. A cross-examiner may use treatises the authority of which is established in a manner acceptable to the trial court to test the qualifications of the witness, regardless of whether that witness had relied upon or recognized the treatise.

5. A medical doctor defendant in a malpractice action, examined as an adverse party, may be requested to express an opinion based on his expert knowledge.

Frederick E. Saefke, Jr., Bismarck, for appellants.

Wattam, Vogel, Vogel, Bright & Peterson, Fargo, for respondents.

ERICKSTAD, Judge.

This opinion covers two causes of action. The first was brought by Florence J. Iverson as plaintiff against W. E. G. Lancaster, M.d., and the Fargo Clinic as defendants. The second was brought by Florence's husband Howard as plaintiff against the same parties as defendants. The summonses were served on June 23, 1964, and the complaints on July 13, 1964.

The essence of both complaints is that Dr. Lancaster negligently failed to diagnose Mrs. Iverson's condition of hypertension, commonly known as high blood pressure, as due to coarctation of the aorta; that he advised her that because of her hypertension, she should not become pregnant; that he advised her that she should have a tuboligation so that she and her husband might be allowed to adopt children and that as a result she underwent a hysterectomy, which now prevents her from bearing children; and that subsequently he discovered that she had coarctation of the aorta and recommended corrective surgery, which resulted in the elimination of her hypertension.

Among other things, the defendants denied in their answers that either the doctor or the clinic was in any respect negligent, and in separate defenses they asserted that the complaints were barred by N.D.C.C. § 28--01--18 because the causes of action accrued more than two years before the commencement of the lawsuits.

The cases were consolidated for trial and came on for jury trial in the District Court of Cass County on January 17, 1966. When the plaintiffs rested their cases at the completion of the submission of their evidence, the defendants moved for a dismissal with prejudice of each of the causes of action and in the alternative for a directed verdict. The trial court granted the motion for dismissal. It is from the judgments entered on the orders dismissing the plaintiffs' complaints that the appeals are taken.

Before we consider the specifications of error on the part of the Iversons we are asked by the defendants (whom we shall hereafter refer to as Dr. Lancaster) to determine whether the causes of action have been outlawed by § 28--01--18:

28--01--18. Actions having two years limitations.--The following actions must be commenced within two years after the cause of action has accrued:

3. An action for the recovery of damages resulting from malpractice; * * *

North Dakota Century Code.

By way of background it should be noted that after issue was joined but before trial Dr. Lancaster made a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the causes of action were outlawed by the statute of limitations. This motion was denied by the trial court without explanation.

The facts pertinent to this issue are that Dr. Lancaster first saw Mrs. Iverson in July 1957; that she continued to see him for the treatment of high blood pressure from then until June 27, 1962; that on February 27, 1959, a hysterectomy was performed on Mrs. Iverson by Dr. Darner, after Dr. Lancaster had advised a tuboligation; that after further examination Dr. Lancaster, on June 27, 1962, discovered that she had a coarctation of the aorta and advised corrective surgery; and that on July 5, 1962, surgery for coarctation of the aorta was performed upon her at Minnesota Heart Hospital, eliminating her high blood pressure.

Dr. Lancaster argues that because the actions were not commenced until June 1964, more than two years had elapsed after the causes of action had accrued, and thus they are outlawed by § 28--01--18. He contends that the causes of action accrued when the hysterectomy was performed on February 27, 1959. Among other citations he refers us to Milde v. Leigh, 75 N.D. 418, 28 N.W.2d 530, 173 A.L.R. 738 (1947); Linke v. Sorenson, 276 F.2d 151 (8th Cir.1960); and what he describes as the 'general rule', as contained in 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177.

The part of the law review article cited as pertinent reads:

The statutory period may begin either when the defendant commits his wrong or when substantial harm matures. This choice, unnecessary where the two events are simultaneous, becomes complex where considerable time intervenes; here the courts have generally looked to the substantive elements of the cause of action on which the suit is based. If the defendant's conduct in itself invades the plaintiff's rights, so that suit could be maintained regardless of damage--as with a breach of contract and most intentional torts--the statute commences upon completion of the conduct. But if harm is deemed the gist of the action, the occurrence of harm marks the beginning of the period.

Developments in the Law--Statutes of Limitations, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, 1200--1201 (1950).

Notwithstanding what was said in Milde and Linke (both of which arose in North Dakota) and the alleged general rule, we are of the opinion that neither of the causes of action in these appeals has been out-lawed by the statute of limitations for reasons we shall hereafter explain.

The annotator of 80 A.L.R.2d 368 makes the following analysis:

There is, theoretically, a choice as to the event which starts limitations running against a malpractice action; the period may commence to run when a practitioner's wrongful act or omission occurred, or when such act or omission resulted in injury, or when the injury was, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been, discovered, or, in the case of continuing treatment by the practitioner, when the treatment terminated.

Annot., 80 A.L.R.2d 368, 373 (1961).

After studying the various approaches taken by the courts, the recent trend of decisions to depart from the 'general rule,' the indefinite language of our statute, and our belief that justice is best served when claims are adjudicated on their merits, we conclude that the best rule is that the limitation period commences to run against a malpractice action from the time the act of malpractice with resulting injury is, or by reasonable diligence could be, discovered. Jurisdictions adopting this rule are listed in 80 A.L.R.2d, at 388, under § 7(b). For cases following the discovery rule decided since the publication of that annotation see: Yoshizaki v. Hilo Hospital, Hawaii, 433 P.2d 220 (1967); Waldman v. Rohrbaugh, 241 Md. 137, 215 A.2d 825 (1966); Johnson v. St. Patrick's Hospital, Mont., 417 P.2d 469 (1966); Berry v. Branner, Ore., 421 P.2d 996 (1966).

In Johnson, speaking for the majority of the Montana Supreme Court, Justice John C. Harrison discussed the so-called general rule and the various exceptions to it and commented:

All of these exceptions to the so-called 'general rule' which respondents want this court to follow illustrate that in reality the 'general rule' has little to recommend it.

He concluded the majority opinion as follows:

We believe that our sister state of Idaho when confronted with the problem presented by the facts of this case has adopted the best reasoned rule, which we adopt and will follow. It is: 'Where a foreign object is negligently left in a patient's body by a surgeon and the patient is in ignorance of the fact, and consequently of his right of action for malpractice, the cause of action does not accrue until the patient learns of, or in exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have learned of the presence of such foreign object in his body.' Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Idaho 485, 389 P.2d 224 (1964).

Johnson v. St. Patrick's Hospital, Mont., 417 P.2d 469, 473 (1966).

It is interesting, in light of Dr. Lancaster's contention that Milde and Linke constitute precedent requiring us to follow the so-called general rule, that one of the justices of the Montana Supreme Court dissented in Johnson on the ground that the adoption of the Idaho rule overruled by implication precedent in Montana.

In Berry the Oregon Supreme Court, in holding that the cause of action accrued at the time the plaintiff obtained knowledge or reasonably should have obtained knowledge of the tort committed upon her person, overruled Vaughn v. Langmack, 236 Ore. 542, 390 P.2d 142 (1964), a decision rendered only two years earlier.

We note the Oregon court's analysis of the trend away from the 'general rule':

An examination of the cases decided subsequent to those discussed in Vaughn indicates that the trend is away...