Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Anne Theroux sued Dr. Samuel Vick and the Methodist Specialty Transplant Hospital for causes of action arising out of a kidney transplant operation where she was the donor and her husband was the donee. Theroux alleged claims of medical negligence, false imprisonment, fraud, lack of consent and failure to disclose. Because Theroux did not file an expert’s report as required by the medical malpractice statute, the trial court granted Vick’s motion to dismiss all of Theroux’s claims except those for fraud and false imprisonment. Under the fraud claim, Theroux alleged Vick misrepresented his qualifications, induced her into having a procedure she would not have had if she’d known all the risks, and performed invasive surgery after assuring Theroux that only laparoscopic surgery would be used. Vick then filed a traditional summary judgment motion on the remaining claims. He said her fraud claims were really medical negligence claims, and that her false imprisonment claims were barred by limitations. The trial court granted the motion without stating its reasons. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court agrees that at base, Theroux’s fraud claim is really an informed-consent claim. All of Theroux’s allegations have to do with 1. whether Vick’s selection of the particular surgical procedure and his performance met the standard of care for doctors in similar circumstances, and 2. whether he adequately disclosed those risks to Theroux. The court confirms that under a standard application of the general two-year statute of limitations period, Theroux’s false imprisonment claim would be barred. She was hospitalized Aug. 3, 1999, and released Aug. 10; she filed suit Oct. 15, 2001. Theroux argues that the limitations period should have been tolled for 75 days because of the notice of claim letter she sent to Vick. According to Theroux, she should have had until Oct. 23, 2001, to file her claim. Vick says that tolling does not apply, because her false imprisonment claim was not covered by the medical malpractice statute. “We need not decide whether Theroux’s false imprisonment claim is a health care claim. If her claim does not fall within the scope of the [medical malpractice statute], the claim is barred by the general two-year statute of limitations[.] . . . On the other hand, if her claim falls within the [statute's] scope and the tolling period applies, Theroux was required to file an expert report, which she did not do. Therefore, in either event, the trial court did not err in dismissing this claim.” OPINION:Sandee Bryan Marion, J.; L�pez, C.J., Marion and Speedlin, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.