Rock v. Warhank

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court considered whether Pamela Rock’s medical-malpractice action was barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that, under Iowa Code section 614.1(9), the limitations period requires knowledge, or knowledge through reasonable diligence, of both the injury and its factual cause; in a negligent-misdiagnosis case, the injury and discovery questions are generally fact-specific. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, reversed the district court’s summary judgment, and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Under Iowa Code section 614.1(9), the limitations period begins when the claimant knew, or through reasonable diligence should have known, of both the physical or mental injury and its cause in fact; discovery of the provider's negligence is not required.
2. In a negligent-misdiagnosis case, the injury for purposes of section 614.1(9) occurs when the underlying problem worsens into a more serious condition that poses greater danger or requires more extensive treatment; determining when that occurred and when the claimant knew or should have known of it and its cause is highly fact-specific.
3. As a matter of law, Rock could not have known, and would not have known through reasonable diligence, of the spread of her cancer and its factual cause, the alleged misdiagnosis, before she was diagnosed with cancer on October 8, 2002, at the earliest.
4. Summary judgment was improper because Rock filed suit within two years of the earliest date on which she could have known or should have known through reasonable diligence of her injury and its cause, and the record did not establish when the injury itself occurred.

Questions Presented

1. When does Iowa Code section 614.1(9)'s two-year medical-malpractice limitations period begin in a negligent-misdiagnosis case?
2. Does the limitations period begin when the patient begins investigating a possible injury, or only when the patient knew or should have known through reasonable diligence of both the injury and its cause in fact?
3. Was summary judgment proper when the record did not establish as a matter of law when the cancer-related injury occurred or when Rock knew or should have known of that injury and its cause?

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded