Walters v. Cleveland Regional Medical Center

The Texas Constitution grants foreign-object claimants a reasonable opportunity to discover their injuries and file suit, even if the two-year limitations period has run (though not, as in a companion case, if the 10-year repose period has run). Texas Supreme Court, No. 08-0169, 03-12-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Argued September 9, 2009

This is one of two “surgical sponge” cases decided today regarding the time limits placed on medical-malpractice suits.*fn1 The issue here: did Tangie Walters raise a fact issue as to whether she could avail herself of the Open Courts provision*fn2 as an exception to the two-year statute of limitations?*fn3 We answer the same way we did twenty-five years ago with regard to the claimant in Neagle v. Nelson: yes.*fn4 The Texas Constitution grants foreign-object claimants a reasonable opportunity to discover their injuries and file suit,*fn5 even if the two-year limitations period has run (though not, as in today’s companion case,*fn6 if the ten-year repose period has run). And here, Walters has raised a fact issue as to whether the Open Courts provision applies.

Sponge cases constitute a unique class of malpractice claims, thus meriting unique Open Courts treatment: (1) such injuries are notoriously hard to discover; (2) the existence of wrongdoing (and the identity of the wrongdoer) are usually undisputed; and (3) an absolute two-year cutoff would render superfluous the Legislature’s ten-year statute of repose.

Walters v. Cleveland Regional Medical Center

The Texas Constitution grants foreign-object claimants a reasonable opportunity to discover their injuries and file suit, even if the two-year limitations period has run (though not, as in a companion case, if the 10-year repose period has run). Texas Supreme Court, No. 08-0169, 03-12-2010

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal