Can separate medical negligence acts restart the statute of limitations clock? Call v. Keiter, M.D. Explained

In Call v. Keiter, M.D., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed critical questions about when the statute of limitations begins running in medical malpractice cases involving multiple treatment episodes and whether fault can be apportioned to third parties in such cases.

Background and Facts

The patient was born with pectus excavatum and underwent reconstructive surgery as a child. In 1981, the defendant doctor performed corrective surgery and breast augmentation with silicone implants. After the left implant ruptured in 1995, the doctor removed silicone granuloma but left the surrounding scar tissue capsule in place. In December 2000, a hole developed in the patient’s left breast, exposing the implant. The doctor removed the implant through the hole but failed to investigate the cause, prescribe adequate antibiotics, or perform a capsulectomy to remove the remaining scar tissue that could harbor infection. When the doctor inserted a new implant in August 2001 without addressing the infection source, another extrusion occurred in October 2001.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two main issues: (1) whether the patient’s malpractice claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Utah’s discovery rule and one-action rule, and (2) whether the trial court properly denied the doctor’s request for a special verdict form to apportion fault to the implant manufacturer.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the patient’s claims constituted a separate legal injury arising from the doctor’s failure to properly treat the infection in December 2000, not merely subsequent harm from the earlier silicone removal. The court distinguished this case from situations where a plaintiff impermissibly splits claims arising from a single legal injury. Regarding fault apportionment, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the special verdict form, finding no factual and legal basis to allocate fault to the implant manufacturer when the patient’s theory focused on the doctor’s failure to remove accessible residual materials that could harbor infection.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates the importance of carefully analyzing the specific acts of negligence alleged when applying the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases. Practitioners should distinguish between separate legal injuries that restart the limitations period and subsequent manifestations of harm from a single injury. The ruling also shows that fault apportionment requires both factual and legal bases—a defendant cannot automatically shift fault to third parties without establishing their actual contribution to the alleged negligence.