Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the medical negligence claim against Dr. Edward Szoko was barred by the two-year statute of limitations because his radiological service occurred on a single date and did not constitute continuing care. The court reversed summary judgment for South County Radiologists, Inc., holding that the record presented genuine issues regarding whether the entity provided continuing radiological services subject to a continuing duty of care. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Holdings
- Section 516.105 barred the Montgomerys' claim against Dr. Szoko because he committed the alleged act of neglect on February 14, 1995, and the action was filed more than two years later. The continuing-care exception did not apply because Szoko had no further contact with Montgomery after that discrete service.
- A health-care entity composed of radiologists may have a proportionate duty of continuing care, and the continuing-care exception may apply when the entity provides continuing radiological services for the same complaint, body part, and patient over multiple examinations. SCR was not entitled to partial summary judgment because the record presented genuine issues of material fact concerning continuing care.
- Summary judgment for SCR was improper because the record presented genuine issues of material fact regarding whether SCR owed a continuing duty of care and whether the continuing-care exception applied.
Questions Presented
- Whether Missouri's two-year medical-malpractice statute of limitations barred the claim against Dr. Szoko based on his single radiological service on February 14, 1995.
- Whether the continuing-care exception to the statute of limitations could apply to South County Radiologists, Inc., a health-care entity that provided multiple radiological services for the same patient, ailment, and body part over nine months.
- Whether the summary-judgment record established that SCR was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the continuing-care issue.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (12)
- ITT Commercial Finance v. Mid-America Marine Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376, 382 (Mo. banc 1993)(followed)
- Thatcher v. De Tar, 351 Mo. 603, 173 S.W.2d 760, 762 (1943)(followed)
- Weiss v. Rojanasathit, 975 S.W.2d 113, 119-20 (Mo. banc 1998)(followed)
- Shroyer v. McCarthy, 769 S.W.2d 156, 161 (Mo. App. 1989)(followed)
- Green v. Washington University Medical Center, 761 S.W.2d 688, 689-90 (Mo. App. 1988)(followed)
- Laughlin v. Forgrave, 432 S.W.2d 308, 313 (Mo. banc 1968)(followed)
- Cazzell v. Schofield, 319 Mo. 1169, 8 S.W.2d 580, 587 (1928)(followed)
- Shah v. Lehman, 953 S.W.2d 955, 958 (Mo. App. 1997)(distinguished)
- Dunagan v. Shalom Geriatric Center, 967 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Mo. App. 1998)(distinguished)
- Brickey v. Concerned Care of the Midwest, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 592, 597-98 (Mo. App. 1999)(considered)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…