Teeters v.Currey
Supreme Court of Tennessee,1974
518 S.W.2d 512
HENRY,JUSTICE.This malpractice action essentially involves a determination of whether the statute of limitation begins to run from the date of the injury or from the date of the discovery of the injury.
The admitted facts are that on June 5,1970,plaintiff gave birth to a normal child.Defendant was the attending physician.Following delivery,because of edema anemia and other medical complications,he recommended that plaintiff have a bilateral tubal ligation,the purpose of which was to avoid future pregnancies.Defendant performed this surgery on June 6,1970,and her recovery was uneventful.
On December 6,1972 she was hospitalized at Newell Clinic and was attended by Dr.Edgar Atkin.Dr.Atkin discovered that she was pregnant.He so advised her and referred her to other physicians for obstetrical care.
On March 9,1973 plaintiff was delivered of a premature child and there were severe complications.Pursuant to medical advice,another bilateral tubal ligation was performed on March 11,1973.
Plaintiff instituted suit on November 15,1973,three years,five months and nine days after the operation,but approximately eleven months after discovering her pregnancy.
Plaintiff alleges that during the course of this latter surgery it was discovered that the earlier surgery performed by the defendant was negligently and inadequately done and was not performed in accordance with proper standards of care and good medical practice.
Specifically,she charges that defendant failed to properly or completely sever the left fallopian tube in a manner which would assure sterility and prevent future pregnancies.Further,she charges that he failed to identify the right fallopian tube in a manner which would assure sterility and prevent future pregnancies.Further,she charges that he failed to cut,sever or ligate this tube in any manner.
The defendant’s answer pleads the statute of limitations and denies that he was guilty of any act of negligence….
Section 28-304,T.C.A.applies to malpractice suits and provides that the action be “commenced within one (1) year after cause of action accrued.”
When does the cause of action accrue?
In Bodne v.Austin,156 Tenn.366 (1928) the Court said: “… we have been re-ferred to no authority holding that mere ignorance and failure to discover the existence of the cause of action,or the consequential damages resulting from the breach of duty or wrongful act,can prevent the running of the statute of limitations.”
But this was in 1927 almost half a century ago.
In Albert v.Sherman,167 Tenn.133 (1934),the Court followed Bodne.
This was forty years ago….(https://www.daowen.com)
The time has come for us to re-examine the past holdings of our Appellate Courts in the light of contemporary standards of justice and of the holdings of the courts of last resort in other American jurisdictions….
We recognize that statutes of limitations are statutes of repose designed to promote stability in the affairs of men and to avoid the uncertainties and burdens inherent in defending stale claims.
In recognition of this,traditionally our courts have held that a right of action accrues immediately upon the infliction or occurrence of injury and that mere ignorance or failure of plaintiff to discover his cause of action or the subsequent resulting damage does not toll the statute.Bodne v.Austin,supra.
That this is a harsh and an oppressive rule there can be little doubt.To counter the casualties it has produced the courts have fashioned the so-called “discovery doctrine,” under which the statute does not begin to run until the negligent injury is,or should have been discovered.
This concept has been adopted by judicial interpretation in at least a majority of the American states.Some of these jurisdictions limit the application of the doctrine to“foreign objects”;the majority apply it to all medical malpractice cases….
As evidence of the rapidity with which the various jurisdictions have embraced this equitable doctrine,the main volume of 80 A.L.R.2d,published in 1961,at page 388,lists seven (7) states as having adopted the discovery rule,….
The main volume of the appropriate Later Case Service,published in 1968,lists twelve (12) additional states ….
The 1974 supplement lists nine (9) more states ….
This brings the total to twenty-eight (28) states.
Add Tennessee to the list.
We adopt as the rule of this jurisdiction the principle that in those classes of cases where medical malpractice is asserted to have occurred through the negligent performance of surgical procedures,the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations commences to run when the patient discovers,or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence for his own health and welfare,should have discovered the resulting injury.All cases contra are overruled.
In the instant case the cause of action accrued when plaintiff discovered that she was pregnant,or in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence,she should have so discovered.
We add,in meticulous fairness to the trial judge,that in ruling as he did,he properly relied upon our precedents.
We here merely recede from prior cases in order to establish a rule which we are convinced will be productive of results more nearly consonant with the demands of justice and the dictates of ethics and morality.
Reversed and remanded.Appellees will pay all costs incident to this appeal.