Fowler v. Bowie ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
October 30, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
WILLIAM DAVID FOWLER and ) WASHINGTON COUNTY
wife LINDA FOWLER ) LAW COURT
) 03A01-9801-CV-00021
Plaintiffs-Appellants )
)
) HON. THOMAS J. SEELEY, JR.,
v. ) JUDGE
)
)
RICHARD BOWIE, M. D. )
)
Defendant-Appellee ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
FRANCIS X. SANTORE and FRANCIS X. SANTORE, JR., OF GREENEVILLE FOR
APPELLANTS
JAMES E. BRADING OF JOHNSON CITY FOR APPELLEE
OPINION
Goddard, P.J.
In this medical malpractice case, Plaintiffs William David Fowler and his wife
Linda Fowler appeal the Trial Court’s sustaining a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant,
Richard Bowie, M. D.
The facts of this case are succinctly stated in the order of dismissal as follows:
The Complaint alleges that on February 20, 1992, the Defendant
performed surgery on Plaintiff William David Fowler to repair a hernia and that in
doing so the Defendant placed a plug made of marlex in the body of the Plaintiff
in the inguinal canal where the canal was most lax. The Complaint further alleges
that the way and manner in which this plug was placed by the Defendant was
negligent because the Defendant did not sew the marlex to the floor of the
inguinal canal and because of this the marlex entrapped the plaintiff’s ilio-
inguinal nerve and put pressure upon the plaintiff’s spermatic cord. The
Complaint alleges that this was not discovered until October 4, 1996. Suit was
filed on October 2, 1997.
It is the position of the Fowlers, contrary to the Trial Court’s determination, that
the exception to the three-year Statute of Repose contained in Subsection (a)(4) of T.C.A. 29-26-
1161 would also include foreign objects intentionally but negligently placed in a patient's body.
Our reading of the record and the briefs persuade us that under the authority of
Farrow v. Reed, an unpublished opinion of this Court filed in Knoxville on September 4, 1996,
and the authority cited therein, this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10(a) of this
Court.
The judgment of the Trial Court is accordingly affirmed and the cause remanded
for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against the Fowlers and their sureties.
1
2 9 - 2 6 - 1 1 6 . S t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s – C o u n t e r c l a i m f o r d a m a g e s . - -
( a ) ( 1 ) T h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i n m a l p r a c t i c e a c t i o n s s h a l l b e o n e ( 1 )
y e a r a s s e t f o r t h i n § 2 8 - 3 - 1 0 4 .
( 2 ) I n t h e e v e n t t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y i s n o t d i s c o v e r e d w i t h i n t h e s a i d
o n e ( 1 ) y e a r p e r i o d , t h e p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n s h a l l b e o n e ( 1 ) y e a r r o m t h e
d a t e o f s u c h d i s c o v e r y .
( 3 ) I n n o e v e n t s h a l l a n y s u c h a c t i o n b e b r o u g h t m o r e t h a n t h r e e ( 3 )
y e a r s a f t e r t h e d a t e o n w h i c h t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t o r o m i s s i o n o c c u r r e d e x c e p t
w h e r e t h e r e i s f r a u d u l e n t c o n c e a l m e n t o n t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t i n w h i c h
c a s e t h e a c t i o n s h a l l b e c o m m e n c e d w i t h i n o n e ( 1 ) y e a r a f t e r d i s c o v e r y t h a t
t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n e x i s t s .
( 4 ) T h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n h e r e i n s e t f o r t h s h a l l n o t a p p l y i n c a s e s w h e r e
a f o r e i g n o b j e c t h a s b e e n n e g l i g e n t l y l e f t i n a p a t i e n t ' s b o d y i n w h i c h c a s e
t h e a c t i o n s h a l l b e c o m m e n c e d w i t h i n o n e ( 1 ) y e a r a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y o r
w r o n g f u l a c t i s d i s c o v e r e d o r s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d .
2
_______________________________
Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
CONCUR:
________________________________
Herschel P. Franks, J.
________________________________
Don T. McMurray, J.
3