Teller v. Schepens
| Decision Date | 09 October 1980 |
| Parties | Arthur TELLER v. Charles L. SCHEPENS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Ansel B. Chaplin, Boston, for plaintiff.
Kenneth D. Weiss, Lynn, for defendant.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, WILKINS, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.
This is the second case we decide today in which a plaintiff's claim of medical malpractice was held barred by the statute of limitations 1 as construed in Pasquale v. Chandler, 350 Mass. 450, 215 N.E.2d 319 (1966). In Franklin v. Albert, ante, --- Mass. --- a, 411 N.E.2d 458 (1980) we overruled Pasquale and held that a cause of action for medical malpractice does not accrue until the plaintiff learns, or reasonably should have learned, that he has been harmed as a result of the defendant's conduct. The plaintiff Teller's claim must be examined in light of this holding.
According to the complaint and affidavit, the plaintiff suffered a total loss of sight in his right eye and substantial impairment of vision in his left eye as a result of a December, 1975, gunshot wound. On April 2, 1976, he was seen by the defendant, an eye surgeon, who recommended surgery and then performed three operations on the plaintiff's left eye on April 15, April 21, and May 10, 1976. The plaintiff did not visit the defendant again until his discharge from the defendant's care on June 29, 1976. On that date the defendant told the plaintiff that nothing could be done to restore his eyesight, and that he would have to learn to live without being able to see. The plaintiff alleges that it was not until then that he became aware that he had sustained a permanent loss of vision in his left eye.
The plaintiff commenced this action for alleged medical malpractice on June 27, 1979, just short of three years after the June 29, 1976, date of discharge, and three years and seven weeks after the date of the third operation. In his complaint, the plaintiff set forth particular allegations of negligence, including the defendant's recommendation that the plaintiff undergo eye surgery, his failure to inform the plaintiff of the risks associated with surgery, and the close timing of the three operations which did not allow for recovery from each preceding operation nor from the trauma of the gunshot wound. A Superior Court judge allowed the defendant's motion to dismiss, which was treated as a motion for summary judgment, on the ground that the statute of limitations started to run on the date of the third operation, the last act of negligence alleged by the plaintiff. 2 This court allowed the plaintiff's application for direct appellate review.
The determinative event applied by the Superior Court judge, although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiler v. PortfolioScope, Inc.
...corporation employing plaintiff, requested actual malice jury instruction at trial; error not to give it). Cf. Teller v. Schepens, 381 Mass. 621, 623, 411 N.E.2d 464 (1980) (once defendant raises statute of limitations issue, plaintiff bears burden of proving claims are not time barred). Cf......
-
Salinsky v. Perma-Home Corp.
...malpractice. Franklin v. Albert, 381 Mass. 611, --- - ---, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1980) 2187, 2194-2197, 411 N.E.2d 458; Teller v. Schepens, 381 Mass. 621, --- - ---, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1980) 2199, 2200-2201, 411 N.E.2d 464. See Hendrickson v. Sears, 365 Mass. 83, 89-90, 310 N.E.2d 131 (1974). The concep......
-
Comstock v. Collier
...plaintiff consulted with defendant regarding condition, not date plaintiff consulted with another physician); accord Teller v. Schepens, 381 Mass. 621, 411 N.E.2d 464 (1980); Johnson v. Winthrop Lab. Div. of Sterling Drugs, 291 Minn. 145, 190 N.W.2d 77 (1971); Peteler v. Robison, 81 Utah 53......
-
Lindsay v. Romano
...the plaintiff to prove her claim falls within the discovery rule. See McGuinness, supra at 620, 591 N.E.2d 659; Teller v. Schepens, 381 Mass. 621, 623, 411 N.E.2d 464 (1980); Franklin v. Albert, 381 Mass. 611, 619, 411 N.E.2d 458 3. Accrual of the plaintiff's cause of action. A cause of act......