Vidinha v. Miyaki

• Citation: 145 P.3d 879
• Decision Date: 09 October 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26188.,26188.
• Parties: Althia VIDINHA, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Warren Vidinha, Cory Vidinha, Kellie Anne Vidinha, Joey Vidinha, Brandon Vidinha and Brittany Vidinha, Plaintiffs, v. Clyde T. MIYAKI, M.D., and Sharon Lawler, M.D., Defendants-Appellees, and The Queen's Medical Center, John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, and Doe Partnerships 1-10, Defendants.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Hawai'i

145 P.3d 879

Althia VIDINHA, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Warren Vidinha, Cory Vidinha, Kellie Anne Vidinha, Joey Vidinha, Brandon Vidinha and Brittany Vidinha, Plaintiffs, v. Clyde T. MIYAKI, M.D., and Sharon Lawler, M.D., Defendants-Appellees, and The Queen's Medical Center, John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, and Doe Partnerships 1-10, Defendants.

No. 26188.

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai`i.

October 9, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael Jay Green (David J. Gierlach, Honolulu, and Debra A. Kagawa with him on the briefs), for plaintiff-appellant.

George W. Playdon, Jr. (Kelvin H. Kaneshiro and Lisette S. Blumhardt with him on the briefs, Reinwald O'Connor, & Playdon), Honolulu, for defendants-appellees.

BURNS, C.J., FOLEY and FUJISE, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by FUJISE, J.

Plaintiff-Appellant Althia Vidinha (Vidinha) appeals from the First Amended Final Judgment filed on October 21, 2003. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court)¹ granted Defendant-Appellees Clyde T. Miyaki, M.D. (Miyaki) and Sharon Lawler, M.D.'s (Lawler, or collectively, Defendants) motion for summary judgment on December 2, 2002.

On appeal, Vidinha contends the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed with regard to whether (1) the statute of limitations for her lawsuit had tolled and (2) Defendants should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a bar to Vidinha's claim. As we agree with Vidinha, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Vidinha was Lawler's longstanding patient. On or about April 1, 1997, Lawler saw Vidinha, "complaining of some right upper quadrant discomfort and some indigestion." A "CAT"² scan revealed "a possible distal bile duct stone" and Lawler recommended that an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)³ be done. After Vidinha learned that the doctor recommended by others was unavailable, she asked Lawler if Miyaki could perform the ERCP. Miyaki, who is Lawler's husband, performed the procedure the following day, April 8, 1997, but according to Defendants, "was unsuccessful in cannulating the common bile duct and after several attempts, terminated the procedure."⁴ Miyaki reported in the Endoscopy Record that "½ str. Omnipaque injected 25 cc into pancreatic duct."

Several hours after the ERCP procedure, Vidinha returned to the hospital complaining of "severe epigastric right upper quadrant pain with nausea." Vidinha was then admitted into the hospital for "further workup and evaluation for post ERCP pancreatitis." After examination, Dr. Mihae Yu (Dr. Yu) recommended exploratory surgery.⁵ Defendants stated in their moving papers that, after the surgery, Vidinha contracted three hospital-borne infections which led to sepsis and remained in the hospital until July 29, 1997.

During her hospital stay and after being transferred from the intensive care unit, Vidinha was informed by Dr. Yu that she would need to stay in the hospital for four more months. Distressed by this news and concerned about her ability to pay her bills while in the hospital for this length of time, she communicated this concern to Lawler, who, according to Vidinha,⁶ offered to assist Vidinha with her financial obligations.

Later in the year, Vidinha went to Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, where she described the major medical reasons for the visit this way:

I had an ERCP done in April of this year and developed a severe case of pancreatitis. The drainage from my wound has not stopped since my surgery. Dr. Grobe feels that hopefully you can correct this. (I pray that you can.)

She also reported that her gall bladder and part of her pancreas were removed by Dr. Yu in April 1997.

Vidinha consulted with lawyer Richard Fried, Jr. "to find the answers I was looking for" and signed a release on August 23, 1997, which was forwarded by Fried's office to Miyaki with a request for "all medical records and correspondence concerning [Vidinha] from her date of initial treatment/service onward." Vidinha believed that Mr. Fried "would have people that would know how to interpret these records" but ultimately she did not get her "answers" from Mr. Fried.

Vidinha also consulted with the law firm of Trecker & Fritz in the winter of 1997-98.

Meanwhile, Vidinha was not able to work after the ERCP procedure. Lawler helped Vidinha with obtaining disability benefits and paid Vidinha's medical insurance premiums. In June 1998, Vidinha asked Lawler to help her pay her bills. Lawler paid an unspecified number of Vidinha's bills and paid her mortgage through June 1999. Some of these payments were made from a checking account in Miyaki's name but signed by Lawler. Lawler made an additional payment of $30,895.11 to the mortgage company using a City Bank check in January 2000. In July 2000, after realizing her mortgage company had instituted foreclosure proceedings on her house and that Lawler was no longer paying the mortgage, Vidinha sought the advice of her current attorney.

Vidinha filed a complaint with the Medical Claims Conciliation Panel on September 20, 2000. She filed her complaint in the instant case on May 11, 2001, alleging medical malpractice and fraud on the part of Defendants and The Queen's Medical Center.⁷

On October 1, 2002, Defendants moved for summary judgment (motion) on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on the medical malpractice claim against Miyaki without any basis for its tolling and that "without a viable medical malpractice claim . . . all other claims asserted in the Complaint fail as a matter of law." Vidinha, in her opposition papers, argued that the statute of limitations had not run because she did not discover her claim until she consulted with her attorney in July 2000 and that Defendants should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense because their conduct induced Vidinha to delay filing suit.⁸

On November 4, 2002, after a hearing on the motion, the circuit court, concluding "good cause appearing therefor," granted Miyaki and Lawler's motion. Vidinha timely appeals the resulting First Amended Final Judgment filed on October 21, 2003.

II.

Vidinha contends that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the accrual of her cause of action and whether Defendants should be estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.

"We review the circuit court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo." Querubin v. Thronas, 107 Hawai`i 48, 56, 109 P.3d 689, 697 (2005) (citing Hawai`i Cmty. Fed. Credit Union v. Keka, 94 Hawai`i 213, 221, 11 P.3d 1, 9 (2000)).

The Hawai`i Supreme Court has often articulated that

summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. In other words, we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.

Querubin, 107 Hawai`i at 56, 109 P.3d at 697 (quoting Durette v. Aloha Plastic Recycling, Inc., 105 Hawai`i 490, 501, 100 P.3d 60, 71 (2004)).

"`A fact is material if proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties.'" Crichfield v. Grand Wailea Co., 93 Hawai`i 477, 482-83, 6 P.3d 349, 354-55 (2000) (quoting Hulsman v. Hemmeter Dev. Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 61, 647 P.2d 713, 716 (1982)). "[A] `genuine issue as to any material fact' . . . under a conflict in the affidavits as to a particular matter must be of such a nature that it would affect the result." Richards v. Midkiff, 48 Haw. 32, 39, 396 P.2d 49, 54 (1964) (citation omitted).

In reviewing a circuit court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, "`we must view all of the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to [the party opposing the motion].'" Crichfield, 93 Hawai`i at 483, 6 P.3d at 355 (quoting Maguire v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 79 Hawai`i 110, 112, 899 P.2d 393, 395 (1995)). "[A]ny doubt concerning the propriety of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party." GECC Fin. Corp. v. Jaffarian, 79 Hawai`i 516, 521, 904 P.2d 530, 535 (App.1995) (citations omitted).

A.

The statute of limitations begins to run "the moment the plaintiff's cause of action accrues-that is, under [Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)] §§ 657-7 and 657-7.3, the moment plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the negligent act, the damage, and the causal connection between the former and the latter[,]" Yamaguchi v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 65 Haw. 84, 90, 648 P.2d 689, 693-94 (1982) (citing Jacoby v. Kaiser Found. Hosp., 1 Haw.App. 519, 622 P.2d 613 (1981)), otherwise known as the discovery rule.⁹ Stated another way, "[n]ot only does the plaintiff have to discover the injury and the cause, but also that the cause violated the applicable duty of care, i.e., that the cause was negligent." Jacoby, 1 Haw.App. at 524 n. 2, 622 P.2d at 616 n. 2.

However, the discovery rule is not without limit. It includes a duty of reasonably diligent inquiry, which in turn requires prompt consultation with those in the medical and legal community.¹⁰ We find useful the following discussion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on the meaning of "reasonable diligence:"

As the discovery rule has developed, the salient point giving rise to its application is the inability...