Snowden v. Art

• Decision Date: 13 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2019-CA-1113-MR
• Parties: CRAIG SNOWDEN APPELLANT v. KEVIN SNYDER ART, M.D.; SAINT JOSEPH UROLOGY ASSOCIATES; AND KENTUCKYONE HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, INC. APPELLEES
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

CRAIG SNOWDEN APPELLANT
v.
KEVIN SNYDER ART, M.D.; SAINT JOSEPH UROLOGY ASSOCIATES; AND KENTUCKYONE HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, INC. APPELLEES

No. 2019-CA-1113-MR

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

May 13, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE LUCY ANNE VANMETER, JUDGE ACTION NO. 19-CI-00454

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Escum L. Moore, III Lexington, Kentucky Christopher D. Miller Lexington, Kentucky

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Christopher D. Miller Lexington, Kentucky

BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES: Jeffery T. Barnett Holly R. Iaccarino Lexington, Kentucky

BEFORE: ACREE, JONES, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

OPINION

LAMBERT, JUDGE:

Craig Snowden has appealed from the June 25, 2019, opinion and order of the Fayette Circuit Court dismissing his medical negligence claim pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02 on statute of limitations grounds. The circuit court held that the statute of limitations was not

1

tolled by 1) Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 216C.040, the tolling provision in the Medical Review Panel Act (the MRP Act), which has now been declared unconstitutional and repealed; 2) KRS 413.270, Kentucky's savings statute; or 3) the doctrine of equitable tolling. We reverse.

Because this appeal concerns, in part, the application of the MRP Act, it will be useful to discuss that legislative enactment and the ensuing litigation that ultimately resulted in a declaration that it was unconstitutional. The MRP Act, KRS 216C.005 et seq., became effective June 29, 2017, and through it the General Assembly established "medical review panels to review proposed malpractice complaints against health care providers covered by this chapter." KRS 216C.005. KRS 216C.020, in turn, sets forth the requirement of review by a Medical Review Panel (MRP):

(1) All malpractice and malpractice-related claims against a health care provider, other than claims validly agreed for submission to a binding arbitration procedure, shall be reviewed by a medical review panel. Such an action may not be commenced in a court in Kentucky before

(a)T he claimant's proposed complaint has been presented to a medical review panel established under this chapter; and

(b) An opinion is given by the panel. If the panel has not given its opinion within nine (9) months after the filing of the proposed complaint, the plaintiff may commence the action in court

2

(2) Any action involving a dependent claim accruing after June 29, 2017, shall be immediately and automatically stayed until:

(a)The claimant's proposed complaint against the health care provider has been presented to a medical review panel established under this chapter and an opinion is given by the panel; or

(b)Nine (9) months after the filing of the proposed complaint if the panel has not given its opinion.

(3) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a cause of action filed before June 29, 2017.

In addition, KRS 216C.040(1) included a tolling provision: "The filing of a proposed complaint tolls the applicable statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is tolled until ninety (90) days after the claimant has received the opinion of the medical review panel." And in KRS 216C.190, the General Assembly provided that "[i]f the panel has not given its opinion within nine (9) months after the filing of the proposed complaint, the plaintiff may commence the action in court. The panel shall submit a report to the parties, stating the reasons for the delay, and may continue its work to reach an opinion."

Litigation 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):

3

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

4

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

...