Johnny L. Moore v. Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                         This opinion will be unpublished and
    may not be cited except as provided by
    Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    IN COURT OF APPEALS
    A14-0773
    Johnny L. Moore, et al.,
    Appellants,
    vs.
    Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, et al.,
    Respondents.
    Filed March 9, 2015
    Affirmed
    Larkin, Judge
    Hennepin County District Court
    File No. 27-CV-10-19720
    Thomas F. Handorff, Handorff Law Offices, P.C., St. Louis Park, Minnesota (for
    appellants)
    William L. Davidson, Paul C. Peterson, Eric J. Steinhoff, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan &
    Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
    Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
    Larkin, Judge.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    LARKIN, Judge
    Appellants challenge the district court’s summary judgment on their medical-
    malpractice action, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by allowing
    respondents to amend their answer to include a statute-of-limitations defense. Appellants
    also argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Because
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the amendment and because
    appellants’ action is barred under the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the
    summary judgment.
    FACTS
    Appellant Johnny Moore sustained injuries in January 2006, when he fell during a
    post-surgery hospitalization at respondent Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital.               On
    January 15, 2010, Moore and his wife served Park Nicollet with a summons and
    complaint, alleging that the fall occurred on January 15, 2006, and that Park Nicollet was
    negligent. Park Nicollet answered the complaint, generally denying that Mr. Moore
    sustained a fall. Park Nicollet did not assert a statute-of-limitations defense in its answer.
    In July 2010, Park Nicollet moved to dismiss the Moores’ complaint for failure to
    comply with the expert-identification requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (2008). In
    its supporting memorandum, Park Nicollet referred to Minn. Stat. § 541.076(b) (2008),
    which provides a four-year statute of limitations for negligence actions against health
    care providers and noted that the Moores filed their complaint “on January 15, 2010—the
    day the four-year statute of limitation expired.” Park Nicollet did not argue that the
    Moores’ suit was barred under the statute of limitations.
    Park Nicollet filed a supplemental reply memorandum in support of its dismissal
    motion, along with a supplemental attorney affidavit. The attorney affidavit included
    portions of Mr. Moore’s medical records as an exhibit. The records include several
    2
    progress notes indicating that Mr. Moore slipped and fell the night of January 1, 2006.1
    Park Nicollet quoted from these records and referenced details about Mr. Moore’s fall,
    but it did not note the discrepancy between the date of the fall alleged in the complaint
    (January 15, 2006) and the date documented in the medical records (January 1, 2006).
    The Moores cited the same medical records in their memorandum opposing Park
    Nicollet’s dismissal motion. They also did not note the discrepancy.
    The district court granted Park Nicollet’s motion and dismissed the Moores’
    complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with expert-affidavit requirements. The
    Moores appealed, and this court reversed and remanded, concluding that expert testimony
    was not necessary and that section 145.682 therefore did not apply. Moore v. Park
    Nicollet Methodist Hosp., No. A11-591, 
    2011 WL 6306658
    , at *3 (Minn. App. Dec. 19,
    2011).
    During discovery on remand, Park Nicollet realized that Mr. Moore fell and
    suffered his injuries on January 1, 2006, two weeks earlier than the date alleged in the
    complaint. As to why the correct date of Moore’s fall was not discovered until 2013, one
    of Park Nicollet’s attorneys stated that he did not receive Moore’s medical records until
    February 10, 2010, a week after serving Park Nicollet’s answer and that he “did not have
    an opportunity to review the entire 2,600 plus page record” at that time.
    1
    For example, a note dated January 1, 2006, states that Moore was found “sitting on [the]
    floor in [the] bathroom” and said that he had “slipped backing up” but “did not fall on
    [his] incision or hip.” A note dated January 2, 2006, states that Moore “had [a] fall
    apparently late last [night]. While getting up, [he] slipped and fell. Eval[uated] by house
    resident last [night,] felt to be normal.”
    3
    In May 2013, Park Nicollet’s attorneys asked the Moores if they would agree to
    allow Park Nicollet to amend its answer to assert a statute-of-limitations defense. The
    Moores’ attorney refused, believing that “[t]he affirmative defense ha[d] been waived.”
    The same day, Park Nicollet moved the district court for leave to amend its answer to
    include a statute-of-limitations defense and for summary judgment. In its supporting
    memorandum, Park Nicollet described the complaint’s allegation that the fall occurred on
    January 15 as “a direct misstatement of fact” and asserted that “[t]here is clear,
    undisputed and overwhelming evidence that the parties are now aware this incident
    occurred at night on January 1.” Park Nicollet cited the same medical records that were
    included with the attorney affidavit supporting its July 2010 motion to dismiss. Park
    Nicollet also cited the Moores’ September 2012 answer to an interrogatory, which quoted
    those same hospital records, and an additional medical record that indicated the fall
    occurred sometime before January 2, 2006. The Moores opposed both motions, arguing,
    in part, that Park Nicollet “has clearly waived the statute of limitations affirmative
    defense” because “at all times relevant, [Park Nicollet] had in its possession complete
    control and custody of [Moore’s] medical file.”
    In November 2013, the district court granted Park Nicollet’s motion to amend its
    answer but denied its motion for summary judgment. The district court concluded that
    “justice require[d]” it to allow Park Nicollet to amend and that the Moores had failed to
    show that they would be prejudiced by the amendment. Regarding summary judgment,
    the district court stated that the motion was “premature” because “the statute of
    limitations defense [was] not yet properly before the Court.” Three days later, Park
    4
    Nicollet filed an amended answer that “affirmatively allege[d] that [the Moores’] claims
    are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.”
    Shortly thereafter, Park Nicollet moved for summary judgment, arguing that the
    Moores’ claims are “time-barred under the four-year medical malpractice statute of
    limitations.” Park Nicollet asserted that the case “never should have been brought” given
    the expiration of the statute of limitations and that “but for the misstatement [in the
    complaint], this case would have been dismissed long ago.” In opposing Park Nicollet’s
    request for summary judgment, appellants once again argued that Park Nicollet “ha[d]
    clearly waived, relinquished and abandoned a statute of limitations affirmative defense.”
    They also argued that it would be “inequitable, unfair and unjust” to grant Park Nicollet’s
    request for relief. The Moores moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of Park
    Nicollet’s liability.
    The district court granted Park Nicollet’s motion for summary judgment and
    dismissed the Moores’ lawsuit with prejudice, concluding that it was untimely. The
    district court denied the Moores’ motion for partial summary judgment on Park Nicollet’s
    liability, reasoning that it was unnecessary to reach that issue given the statute-of-
    limitations ruling. The Moores appeal.
    DECISION
    I.
    After a responsive pleading is served, “a party may amend a pleading only by
    leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given
    when justice so requires.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 15.01. But leave should not be given if doing
    5
    so “would result in prejudice to the other party.” Fabio v. Bellomo, 
    504 N.W.2d 758
    , 761
    (Minn. 1993). “The [district] court has wide discretion to grant or deny an amendment,
    and its action will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” 
    Id. A district
    court
    abuses its discretion if its decision contravenes “logic and facts on the record,” is
    “arbitrary or capricious,” or is based on “an erroneous view of the law.” Posey v. Fossen,
    
    707 N.W.2d 712
    , 714 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted).
    The Moores offer several arguments in support of their contention that the district
    court should not have granted Park Nicollet leave to amend its answer to include the
    statute-of-limitations defense.   None persuades us that the district court abused its
    discretion by allowing the amendment.
    The Moores initially argue that the district court should not have allowed the
    amendment because Park Nicollet waived the statute-of-limitations defense by not
    including the defense in its original answer. The district court rejected the Moores’
    waiver argument, relying on Oreck v. Harvey Homes, Inc., which states that “even if a
    statute of limitations defense is not properly pleaded in the answer, the trial court has
    broad discretionary powers to permit a party to amend its pleading.” 
    602 N.W.2d 424
    ,
    427 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 2000).
    A party seeking to raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense must
    specifically plead that defense. Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.03; Rhee v. Golden Home Builders,
    Inc., 
    617 N.W.2d 618
    , 621 (Minn. App. 2000). Failure to do so results in a waiver of the
    defense. 
    Rhee, 617 N.W.2d at 621
    . However, no waiver occurs if the party amends its
    pleading to include the affirmative defense. See Rehberger v. Project Plumbing Co., Inc.,
    6
    
    295 Minn. 577
    , 578, 
    205 N.W.2d 126
    , 127 (1973) (“A failure to plead an affirmative
    defense, without later amendment of the pleading, waives the defense.”); 
    Oreck, 602 N.W.2d at 427
    . Accordingly, Park Nicollet’s failure to include the statute-of-limitations
    defense in its original answer did not preclude it from obtaining leave of the court to
    amend the answer to include the defense. See 
    Rhee, 617 N.W.2d at 621
    (“Pleadings may
    be amended to assert an affirmative defense.”).
    The Moores also raise the doctrine of laches and imply that it should prevent Park
    Nicollet from raising the statute-of-limitations defense at this stage in the litigation. The
    district court rejected the Moores’ reliance on the doctrine of laches, reasoning that laches
    “prevents the assertion of a stale claim, not a defense.” See Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.03 (“In a
    pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively . . . laches . . . and
    any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”).
    “Laches is an equitable defense,” which discourages “stale demands.” Ryan v.
    Minneapolis Police Relief Ass’n, 
    251 Minn. 250
    , 255, 
    88 N.W.2d 17
    , 21 (1958). Under
    the equitable doctrine of laches, “when one sits on one’s rights for too long a time, that
    person’s claim should be estopped from continuing because it would be inequitable to
    require the defendant to fight the suit.” Gully v. Gully, 
    599 N.W.2d 814
    , 825 (Minn.
    1999) (emphasis added). The Moores do not provide legal authority or argument that
    persuades us that they may rely on the doctrine of laches to avoid a statute-of-limitations
    defense.
    Lastly, the Moores argue that they were prejudiced by the amendment. Prejudice
    to the party opposing a motion to amend is a “major consideration” in the district court’s
    7
    decision. McDonald v. Stonebraker, 
    255 N.W.2d 827
    , 830 (Minn. 1977). “Ordinarily,
    unless a party opposing an amendment can establish some prejudice other than merely
    having to defend against an additional claim or defense, an amendment will be allowed.”
    Envall v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 704, 
    399 N.W.2d 593
    , 597 (Minn. App. 1987), review
    denied (Minn. Mar. 25, 1987). “Although an adverse decision on the merits is obviously
    prejudicial, prejudice is a question of fundamental fairness.       Prejudice may be
    demonstrated by lack of notice, procedural irregularities, or lack of a meaningful
    opportunity to respond to the motion.” Bradley v. First Nat’l Bank of Walker, N.A., 
    711 N.W.2d 121
    , 128 (Minn. App. 2006).        Other relevant factors are “the stage of the
    proceedings,” whether a “substantial delay will result,” and whether the amendment will
    “accomplish nothing, such as when the amendment does not state a cognizable legal
    claim.” 
    Envall, 399 N.W.2d at 597
    .
    The Moores assert that Park Nicollet’s amendment caused them “severe,” “harsh,”
    “brutal,” and “unjust” prejudice. The only prejudice they identify is Park Nicollet’s
    assertion of the statute-of-limitations defense and its attendant request for summary
    judgment.   Ordinarily, having to defend against an additional defense is inadequate
    prejudice to preclude amendment. See 
    id. Moreover, the
    district court noted that Park
    Nicollet’s “statute of limitations defense was made known to the Moores before the close
    of discovery.”   Although the district court granted leave to amend, it denied Park
    Nicollet’s immediate request for summary judgment.       The district court’s approach
    allowed the Moores time to conduct discovery regarding the statute-of-limitations
    defense and to prepare for summary-judgment proceedings.
    8
    This court recently opined that a district court does not abuse its discretion by
    allowing an amendment when the opposing party will have time to conduct discovery
    regarding the amendment and “does not identify any way in which he was prejudiced.”
    Monson v. Suck, 
    855 N.W.2d 323
    , 326 n.2 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn.
    Dec. 30, 2014). Larson v. State, 
    451 N.W.2d 213
    (Minn. App. 1990), is also instructive.
    In Larson, this court considered whether the district court erred by permitting the
    defendant to amend its answer to include a statute-of-limitations defense three years after
    the action was commenced. 
    Id. at 216.
    We noted that the plaintiff made “no showing of
    prejudice” and that the district court “continued discovery for two months and
    rescheduled the hearing on the motion for summary judgment in an effort to lessen the
    possibility of prejudice to [the plaintiff.]” 
    Id. Under the
    circumstances, the district court
    committed “no error.” 
    Id. The circumstances
    here are like those in Larson, and we
    similarly discern no error.
    The Moores suggest that the timing of the amendment is fundamentally unfair, and
    therefore prejudicial, given the extensive pre-amendment litigation in this case. But the
    Moores share responsibility for the delay and any unnecessary litigation. The district
    court was “troubled” by the fact that the Moores did not explain “why January 15, 2006
    was the date alleged in the Complaint.” We similarly are troubled by the Moores’ failure
    to ascertain the correct date of injury within the limitations period. At oral argument to
    this court, the Moores acknowledged that they did not obtain the necessary medical
    records before the statute of limitations expired, and they do not allege that Park Nicollet
    9
    prevented them from doing so.        Under the circumstances, the amendment was not
    fundamentally unfair.
    In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Park Nicollet to
    amend its answer to include the statute-of-limitations defense.
    II.
    “A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings,
    depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
    affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party
    is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 
    Fabio, 504 N.W.2d at 761
    . “[Appellate
    courts] review a district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. In doing so, we
    determine whether the district court properly applied the law and whether there are
    genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.”            Riverview Muir
    Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 
    790 N.W.2d 167
    , 170 (Minn. 2010) (citation
    omitted).
    The Moores’ only argument against the district court’s summary dismissal of its
    lawsuit is that the district court “would not have granted Park Nicollet’s motion for
    summary judgment but-for the fact that it allowed Park Nicollet to amend its answer.”
    The Moores reiterate their contention that Park Nicollet “waived its affirmative defense.”
    We have concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Park
    Nicollet leave to amend and further discussion of that issue is unnecessary.
    “An action by a patient or former patient against a health care provider alleging
    malpractice . . . must be commenced within four years from the date the cause of action
    10
    accrued.” Minn. Stat. § 541.076(b) (2014). For purposes of section 541.076, “health
    care provider” includes hospitals. Minn. Stat. § 541.076(a) (2014). “When a medical-
    malpractice claim is based on a single act of allegedly negligent conduct rather than a
    course of treatment, the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff sustains damage from
    the act.” Mercer v. Andersen, 
    715 N.W.2d 114
    , 120 (Minn. App. 2006).
    The Moores do not dispute that Mr. Moore fell and sustained the injuries that are
    the basis for their lawsuit on January 1, 2006. Their medical-malpractice action therefore
    accrued on January 1, 2006, and the four-year statute of limitations under section
    541.076(b) expired on January 1, 2010. The Moores served Park Nicollet with their
    summons and complaint two weeks later on January 15, 2010. See Minn. R. Civ. P.
    3.01(a) (“A civil action is commenced against each defendant . . . when the summons is
    served upon that defendant. . . .”). The district court therefore did not err by concluding
    that the Moores’ action is barred under section 541.076(b). We therefore affirm the
    summary dismissal of the Moores’ lawsuit against Park Nicollet based on the statute of
    limitations. Given our affirmance, the Moores’ remaining argument that the district court
    should have granted them partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is moot, and
    we do not address it. See Isaacs v. Am. Iron & Steel Co., 
    690 N.W.2d 373
    , 376 (Minn.
    App. 2004) (“[A]n issue may be dismissed as moot if an event occurs that . . . renders it
    impossible to grant effective relief.”), review denied (Minn. Apr. 4, 2005).
    Affirmed.
    11