Brown v. Trover — Jan. 2016 (Summary)

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Brown v. Trover
No. 2012-CA-001880-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Jan. 8, 2016)

A patient brought actions for medical negligence and fraud against a radiologist and claimed medical negligence, negligent credentialing, and fraud against the hospital that employed him (“Foundation”).

The circuit court held that the patient did not file any of his claims against the radiologist within the statutory period and that no actions of the defendants prevented the patient from discovering any of his claims. The court also held that the claims against the Foundation for medical negligence and negligent credentialing were not timely filed. Additionally, the circuit court held that the patient presented no evidence to support his fraud claims against the Foundation.

The court of appeals held that the tort of negligent credentialing is not recognized in Kentucky and the court of appeals left the decision as to whether to recognize the tort of negligent credentialing up to the state supreme court. Additionally, the court held that the procedural error alleged by the patient, regarding notice for a motion for the summary judgment hearing was harmless and did not provide grounds to disturb the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Foundation. The court of appeals further held that the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on the medical negligence claims, against both the radiologist and the Foundation, was proper because the claim was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The patient was on notice that he may have had a claim against the defendants when he learned that he was improperly diagnosed; not at a later date when he read an announcement that stated that patients who had been treated by the physician should present themselves as potential members of a class action lawsuit. Finally, the court held that the patient did not present any evidentiary support for his fraud claims against the Foundation and the radiologist; therefore, the court of appeals upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment.