Smith v. Fletcher
| Decision Date | 17 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019-SC-0503-TG |
| Citation | 613 S.W.3d 18 |
| Parties | Mark SMITH and Chinena Smith, Appellants v. Wynetta FLETCHER, APRN; Amjad Bukhari, M.D.; James Detherage, M.D.; Health Plus, PSC ; KentuckyOne Health Medical Group, Inc. d/b/a KentuckyOne Health Neurology Associates; KentuckyOne Health, Inc.; and King's Daughters Health System, Inc., Appellees |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: Kevin Crosby Burke, Louisville, Jamie Kristin Neal, Burke Neal PLLC, Kevin B. Sciantarelli, Louisville, Sciantarelli Law Firm.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, WYNETTA FLETCHER, APRN; JAMES DETHERAGE, M.D.; HEALTH PLUS, PSC; AND KING'S DAUGHTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.: Joshua F. Barnette, Lexington, Bethany A. Breetz, Louisville, Robin Elaine McGuffin, Ashley Willis Ward, Lexington, Stites & Harbison, PLLC.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, AMJAD BURKHARI, M.D.; KENTUCKYONE HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, INC. D/B/A KENTUCKYONE HEALTH NEUROLOGY ASSOCIATES; AND KENTUCKYONE HEALTH, INC.: Jeffrey Todd Barnett, Holly Renee Iaccarino, Lexington, Jessie Leigh Mullaney, Barnett Benvenuti & Butler PLLC.
Mark and Chinena Smith filed a complaint against Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Wynetta Fletcher, Dr. Amjad Bukhari, and Dr. James Detherage under the Kentucky Medical Review Panel Act ("MRPA"), Kentucky Revised Statutes ("KRS") 216C.005, et seq. , declared unconstitutional by Commonwealth v. Claycomb , 566 S.W.3d 202 (Ky. 2018).1 After the claims worked their way through the panel process, the Smiths filed a complaint in Fayette Circuit Court against Nurse Fletcher, Drs. Bukhari and Detherage, and the entities that allegedly employed them. Subsequent to the filing of the Smiths’ complaint in circuit court, this Court's decision in Claycomb , wherein we declared the MRPA unconstitutional, was finalized. The defendants then moved the circuit court to dismiss the Smiths’ complaint as violative of the statute of limitations. The trial court found the complaint to be untimely and dismissed the case. The Smiths appealed, and we accepted transfer of the case from the Court of Appeals. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm the trial court in part, reverse the trial court in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Kentucky's Medical Review Panel Act ("MRPA"), Kentucky Revised Statutes ("KRS") 216C.005, et seq. , went into effect on June 29, 2017. It required potential litigants to file any "malpractice and malpractice-related claims against a health care provider, other than claims validly agreed for submission to a binding arbitration procedure" with a medical review panel prior to filing suit in circuit court. Once the claimant filed his or her proposed complaint with the medical review panel, the applicable statute of limitations was tolled "until ninety (90) days after the claimant has received the opinion of the medical review panel." KRS 216C.040.
On June 29, 2017, an action was filed in Franklin Circuit Court challenging the validity of the MRPA. In that case, Claycomb v. Commonwealth , Civil Action No. 17-CI-00708, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the MRPA was unconstitutional, as well as temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (hereinafter, "the Cabinet") from enforcing the MRPA. The circuit court issued its opinion on October 30, 2017. In that decision, the court found the MRPA to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the Cabinet from enforcing the MRPA. By separate order, the court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified the class for declaratory and injunctive relief purposes. The class included "all persons who presently or prospectively have ‘malpractice’ or ‘malpractice-related’ claims against a ‘health care provider’ subject to" the MRPA.
On November 1, 2017, the Cabinet filed (1) a Notice of Appeal and (2) an independent motion for emergency relief from the Court of Appeals under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure ("CR") CR 65.08. In the CR 65.08 motion, the Cabinet sought emergency relief to stay the permanent injunction, claiming that the injunction "jeopardizes the timeliness of the claims that are currently pending before the medical review panels."
The Court of Appeals granted the requested emergency relief on November 9, 2017, thereby staying the circuit court's injunction. In its Order Granting Emergency Relief, the Court of Appeals noted that eighty-nine cases were, at that time, pending before the Cabinet pursuant to the MRPA. The court concluded that "no provision was undertaken to avoid the fatal effect of limitations statutes on the claims of persons who, in obedience to the Act, failed to timely file a lawsuit in court." As a result, the Court of Appeals stayed the circuit court's injunction "until further order of this Court." In other words, the Cabinet was no longer enjoined from enforcing the MRPA, and potential medical malpractice claimants were still required to proceed through the medical review panel process.
Meanwhile, in Franklin Circuit Court, the class members filed a Motion to Modify Injunctive Relief. On November 22, 2017, the Franklin Circuit Court entered an order holding that motion in abeyance "pending a final ruling of the appellate courts on the Defendants [sic] motion under CR 65.08." In that order, the court addressed the Court of Appeals’ concerns about the statute of limitations. That court specifically referenced KRS 413.270, suggesting that this "savings statute" provided claimants ninety days from the date that the MRPA is declared unconstitutional to file in circuit court.
On December 6, 2017, this Court granted transfer of the Cabinet's appeal. The parties briefed the constitutional issues but did not challenge class certification or the Court of Appeals’ Order Granting Emergency Relief. The members of the class, however, briefed the statute of limitations issue and "request[ed] guidance for the bench and bar regarding the applicability of the saving statute and/or equitable tolling principles for MRP claims filed with the Cabinet that should now proceed to court."
On November 15, 2018, this Court issued its opinion in Commonwealth v. Claycomb , 566 S.W.3d 202 (Ky. 2018), in which we held that the MRPA was unconstitutional. We did not address the statute of limitations or tolling issues. The class members then filed a Petition for Modification and/or Extension pursuant to CR 76.32, asking this Court to address the statute of limitations issues. In doing so, the class members asked the Court to consider the MRPA's tolling provisions, Kentucky's savings statute, and equitable tolling principles. We denied that petition on February 14, 2019, and Claycomb became final on that day.
Meanwhile, on February 8, 2018, while Claycomb was pending in this Court, Mark and Chinena Smith filed their medical malpractice claims with the Cabinet's Medical Review Panel Branch, as required by KRS 216C.020. The filing of their claim with the medical review panel served to toll the applicable statute of limitations on their claims. See KRS 216C.040(1). They alleged claims against Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Wynetta Fletcher, Dr. James Detherage, and Dr. Amjad Bukhari. Under the MRPA, their complaint tolled the applicable statute of limitations, which would have otherwise expired on or about April 12, 2018. See KRS 216C.040(1). At the time these claims were filed, the Court of Appeals had issued its order staying the circuit court injunction in the Claycomb matter, but we had not yet ruled on the Cabinet's appeal.
The Smiths’ case was presented to a medical review panel, which issued its opinion on October 29, 2018. Under KRS 216C.040(1), the applicable statute of limitations on the Smiths’ claim continued to be tolled until ninety days after receipt of that decision. The Smiths then filed suit in Fayette Circuit Court on January 18, 2019, within the ninety-day window and prior to Claycomb becoming final on February 14, 2019. In circuit court, they alleged claims not only against Nurse Fletcher, Dr. Detherage, and Dr. Bukhari, but also against Health Plus, PSC, King's Daughters Health System, Inc., KentuckyOne Health Medical Group, Inc., and KentuckyOne Health, Inc. under a theory of vicarious liability.
After Claycomb became final, the defendants filed motions to dismiss alleging that the Smiths’ one-year statute of limitations under KRS 413.140(1) ran on April 12, 2018, at the latest. They argued that this Court's decision in Claycomb declared the MRPA unconstitutional as a whole and therefore void ab initio. As such, the Smiths could not rely on the tolling provision of the MRPA to extend the deadline by which they had to file their complaint. The defendants further argued that by denying the Claycomb class's petition for an extension or modification of its opinion in that case, we rejected the class's arguments that equitable tolling or a savings statute could be applied to toll any expired statute of limitations for claimants who participated in the medical review panel process.
In response to the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Smiths made five primary arguments. First, they argued that, despite our decision in Claycomb , KRS 216C.040(1) still tolled the statute of limitations on their claims because Claycomb did not apply retroactively. Second, the Smiths argued that KRS 413.270, Kentucky's Savings Statute, acted to toll the statute of limitations. Third, they argued equitable tolling. Fourth, the Smiths made various equitable estoppel arguments. Finally, they argued that if the statute of limitations on their claims was not tolled for any other reason, then KRS 413.140, which supplies the one-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, was unconstitutional as applied to their case.
After briefing and argument by both sides, the circuit court dismissed the suit as untimely. In its July 18, 2019, order,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elder v. Ky. Ret. Sys.
...disprove the pre-existence of a genetic condition. As with all pure questions of law, our standard of review is de novo. Smith v. Fletcher, 613 S.W.3d 18 (Ky. 2020).LEGAL ANALYSIS Initially, from a legal perspective, a genetic disorder is not "pre-existing" merely because it is medically pr......
-
Killary v. Thompson
...Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348-349, 64 S.Ct. 582, 88 L.Ed. 788 (1944)). Smith v. Fletcher, 613 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Ky. 2020). Statutes of limitation may also act as an affirmative defense to a suit, providing the party forwarding the defense a "vested ri......
-
Bell v. Craycroft
...the Hospital defendants). The trial court concluded that the Estate's complaint was untimely. Based upon Smith v. Fletcher , 613 S.W.3d 18 (Ky. 2020), we conclude that the statute of limitations was tolled by operation of KRS 1 413.270. Hence, we vacate the summary judgment and remand for f......
-
Snowden v. Art
...to contest the validity of the MRP Act began immediately, and this was ultimately successful, as explained in Smith v. Fletcher, 613 S.W.3d 18 (Ky. 2020): On June 29, 2017, an action was filed in Franklin Circuit Court challenging the validity of the MRPA. In that case, Claycomb v. Commonwe......