In its recent decision in the
case of Dubose v. Quinlan, No. 22 EAP 2016 (Pa. Nov. 22, 2017) (Op. by Mundy, J.)(Baer, J., Concurring and Dissenting)(Saylor, C.J., Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed
the differences between the statute of limitations and a statute of repose in
the context of a medical malpractice case.
Concisely, the court found that
statute of limitations create a time limit for bringing suit, based upon the
date the claim accrued. In contrast,
statutes of repose may limit when suits may be brought, not on the basis of an
accrual of a claim, but from some other cut-off date.
The court noted that only
statutes of limitation are subject to equitable tolling under Pennsylvania
law.
This decision is also notable in
its holding that the statute of limitations for both wrongful death and
survival claims in a medical malpractice case is two (2) years from the date of
death.
The court also noted that the
MCARE Act modified the applicable statue of limitations in medical malpractice
cases such that, in wrongful death actions arising out of a medical malpractice
claim, the claim only accrues at death, not from earlier injuries. The court found that, as the more specific
statute on the issue presented, the MCARE provisions prevailed over the general
tort statute of limitations.
Anyone wishing to review the Majority Opinion may click this LINK.
Justice Baer's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.
Chief Justice Saylor's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James
M. Beck, of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my
attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.