Does filing a prelitigation review request toll Utah's medical malpractice statute of repose? Jensen v. IHC Explained

In Jensen v. IHC, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical timing issue under the Utah Healthcare Malpractice Act (UHMA) regarding whether filing a request for prelitigation review tolls the statute of repose for medical malpractice actions.

Background and Facts

Erik Jensen underwent surgical treatment in March 2010 and suffered cardiac arrest shortly thereafter. Jensen filed a notice of intent to sue and request for prelitigation review on March 21, 2014, received a certificate of compliance on December 26, 2014, and filed suit on February 2, 2015. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that UHMA’s four-year limitation period barred Jensen’s suit because it expired while he was waiting for the prelitigation review to conclude.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether filing a request for prelitigation review tolls the four-year statute of repose under UHMA. This required the court to determine: (1) whether the four-year period functions as a statute of limitations or repose, and (2) if it is a statute of repose, whether it qualifies as an “applicable statute of limitations” that is subject to tolling under Utah Code section 78B-3-416(3)(a).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court first confirmed that the four-year period operates as a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, consistent with prior precedent. However, the court found the phrase “applicable statute of limitations” in the tolling provision to be ambiguous. The Legislature sometimes uses “statute of limitations” as a generic term for limitation periods generally, rather than to distinguish between statutes of limitations and repose.

Resolving this ambiguity, the court looked to the title of Utah Code section 78B-3-404, which is labeled “Statute of limitations—Exceptions—Application.” Since the Legislature placed the four-year period under this heading, it intended the period to be one of the “applicable statute of limitations” tolled by filing a prelitigation panel request.

Practice Implications

This decision creates a harmonious system where plaintiffs can proceed logically through UHMA’s requirements without filing premature “placeholder” lawsuits. Practitioners should ensure clients file their request for prelitigation review within 60 days of filing the notice of intent to secure tolling protection for both the two-year discovery rule and the four-year statute of repose. The ruling prevents potential plaintiffs from being caught in a timing trap where the repose period expires during the mandatory prelitigation process.