Workman v. Nemours Fndtn Inc , 278 F. App'x 124 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2008 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    5-19-2008
    Workman v. Nemours Fndtn Inc
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-3538
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
    Recommended Citation
    "Workman v. Nemours Fndtn Inc" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1200.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1200
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    __________
    No. 07-3538
    __________
    DIANE WORKMAN; ROBERT WORKMAN,
    as administrators of the estate of Ashley Workman, a minor, deceased;
    DIANE WORKMAN; ROBERT WORKMAN,
    individually and in their own right,
    Appellants,
    v.
    THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION and
    WILLIAM I. NORWOOD, M.D., Ph.D.,
    Appellees.
    __________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (District Civ. No. 06-cv-00743)
    District Judge: Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter
    ___________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    May 15, 2008
    ___________
    Before: McKee and Garth, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge *
    (Opinion Filed: May 19, 2008)
    ___________
    OPINION
    *
    The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior District Judge for the District of
    New Jersey, sitting by designation.
    ___________
    GARTH, Circuit Judge:
    This is one in a series of many cases alleging medical malpractice against The
    Nemours Foundation and one of its former cardiac surgeons, Dr. William I. Norwood. In
    this lawsuit, Diane Workman and Robert Workman sued The Nemours Foundation and
    Dr. Norwood on behalf of their daughter, Ashley Workman. They claim that Dr.
    Norwood was negligent when he operated on their daughter, causing her death. The
    gravamen of the Workmans’ suit is that Dr. Norwood’s use of a controversial cooling
    technique on Ashley fell below the appropriate standard of care.
    In a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion, the District Court granted
    summary judgment in favor of The Nemours Foundation and Dr. Norwood, holding that
    the Workmans’ lawsuit was untimely under Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for
    negligence cases. The District Court held that the statute of limitations for their cause of
    action began on the date that Ashley died (i.e., February 25, 2001). Because the statute of
    limitations for negligence actions in Pennsylvania is two years, and the Workmans filed
    suit on February 21, 2006, the District Court held that the Workmans’ case was untimely.
    The District Court also rejected the Workmans’ claim that the statute of limitations
    was tolled under the fraudulent concealment doctrine. Specifically, the District Court
    held that Dr. Norwood’s silence after Ashley’s death did not constitute an affirmative act
    of concealment, nor did it constitute a breach of any fiduciary duty sufficient to toll the
    -2-
    statute of limitations. The District Court also determined that statements by Dr. Norwood
    after Ashley’s death did not constitute fraudulent concealment because Ashley’s death
    sufficiently put the Workmans on notice of the injury and its cause. Furthermore, the
    District Court held that statements by hospital staff members did not amount to fraudulent
    concealment because they were not misleading in any way. Finally, the District Court
    rejected the Workmans’ contention that Dr. Norwood fraudulently concealed the true
    cause of Ashley’s death by writing misleading and contradictory operating notes since the
    Workmans made no attempt to examine these records.
    In our review of the District Court’s ruling, we applied the same standard of
    review as the District Court. See MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Indem. Co., 
    426 F.3d 204
    ,
    209 (3d Cir. 2005). Having independently examined the record and the briefs, we are
    satisfied that the District Court’s judgment should be affirmed substantially for the
    reasons stated in the District Court’s excellent opinion. The order granting summary
    judgment in favor of The Nemours Foundation and Dr. Norwood will be affirmed.
    __________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-3538

Citation Numbers: 278 F. App'x 124

Filed Date: 5/19/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023