14.

Sometimes a party in a dispute would make certain statements, either conciliatory or threatening, that would lull the other party from taking legal action until it's too late. When the suit is finally brought, the defendant may raise the issue of statute of limitations having expired. Plaintiff would contend that he or she relied upon the statements made by the defendant in not initiating the action sooner, and now the defendant should not be allowed to invoke the defense of the statute of limitations. In order for this to be valid, however, plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's statements must be reasonable.

Nurse Threatens Patient That Filing a Lawsuit Will Result in Blacklisting

Facts : John Hanusek arrived at the Southern Maine Medical Center emergency room on the afternoon of May 26, 1986, complaining of chest pain. The Hanuseks allege that there was a long delay between the time that they arrived at the emergency room and the time that Mr. Hanusek began receiving medications for the heart attack he was suffering. They further allege that as a result of the delay in his treatment, which they attribute to negligence on the part of SMMC, he suffered otherwise avoidable heart damage.

The Hanuseks served written notice of their negligence claim on SMMC on May 26, 1989, and filed their complaint in November 19, 1989. SMMC raised the two-year statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and moved to dismiss the complaint based on that ground. Contending that SMMC should be estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense, the Hanuseks filed affidavits alleging that they refrained from consulting an attorney and from commencing their action within the two-year statute of limitations because of a threatening statement made to them by an SMMC employee.

The Superior Court granted SMMC's motion to dismiss, concluding that estoppel could not be invoked to prevent a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense in a civil action such as this one for medical malpractice. The appeal by the Hanuseks followed that dismissal.

Court Decision: The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine first explained the principle of estoppel:

The gist of an estoppel barring the defendant from invoking the defense of the statute of limitations is that the defendant has conducted himself in a manner which actually induces the plaintiff not to take timely legal action on a claim. The plaintiff thus relies to his detriment on the conduct of the defendant by failing to seek legal redress while the doors of the courthouse remain open to him.

The acts of the plaintiff in reliance on the defendant's conduct, however, must be reasonable. Thus in order to meet their burden of establishing the facts necessary to support the successful application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in this case, the Hanuseks must prove that their reliance on the statement of the SMMC nurse in failing to consult an attorney and file a claim within the two-year statutory period was reasonable.

The affidavits of the Hanuseks allege that in a conversation with a supervisory nurse of the intensive care unit of SMMC on May 27, 1986, the day after Mr. Hanusek's visit to the emergency room, Mrs. Hanusek complained about the long delay in obtaining treatment the previous day, and told the nurse that they might consult an attorney. The nurse warned Mrs. Hanusek that "If you get an attorney, your husband's name will be placed on a computer and all the doctors and hospital in this area will know about him and no one will take
him as a patient."

The affidavits further allege that as a result of the nurse's statement, they refrained from consulting an attorney because they were afraid that they would be unable to obtain treatment for Mr. Hanusek's heart condition. Alter reading a newspaper article in February 1989 about a person who had successfully sued SAC for failure to treat a heart attack, the Hanuseks consulted an attorney. The written notice of claim was filed on May 26, 1989, and the complaint was filed in November 1989.

Reliance on the statement of the nurse to preclude any action by the Hanuseks for a period well in excess of two years is not objectively reasonable. For purposes of estoppels, misrepresentations that induce others not to take action can constitute acts on which people reasonably rely to their detriment. The inaction alleged to result from this threat, however, is unreasonable as to its duration and scope.

This is not the case of a misleading statement made shortly before the expiration of the limitations period prompting a brief delay in bringing suit. The statement here was made on the day after the alleged negligence that gave rise to the claim for malpractice and nearly three years prior to any action taken by the Hanuseks. In addition, the Hanuseks made no attempt to confirm the validity of the nurse's statement with anyone from the hospital, such as an administrator or a physician.

Moreover, the Hanuseks relied on the single statement of the nurse to refrain for nearly three years not only from filing suit, but also from consulting privately and confidentially with an attorney. The forbearance of the Hanuseks was not reasonable as a matter of law. Because the action was not commenced within the statutory period, and because there is an insufficient basis to apply estoppel to prevent SMMC from asserting the statute of limitations defense, SMMC is entitled to summary judgment.

 Hanusek v. Southern Maine Medical Center, 584 A.2d 634; 1990 Me.

Next Chapter