Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Don't miss
Home / Opinions / Courts / Court of Appeals, Western District / Negligence: Medical Malpractice-Statute Of Limitations

Negligence: Medical Malpractice-Statute Of Limitations

Where appellant challenged a judgment finding that his medical malpractice action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the appellant’s claims related to the defendant’s medical care in 2012 were time barred because the continuing care exception was not established merely because the appellant returned to the defendant in 2015 for the treatment of complications, but the appellant’s claims related to care and treatment from 2015-2016 were not time barred because there were competing reasonable inferences about whether the appellant terminated his relationship with the defendant on or before October 10, 2016, which would preclude the entry of summary judgment as a matter of law, and the judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.


Continuing care exception

Dissenting opinion by Chapman, J. “Having reviewed the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Templeton, there is only one reasonable inference that may be drawn – that Templeton declined to follow Dr. Orth’s continuing care directives, and had thus dismissed him in doing so, more than two years prior to filing suit….

“Templeton failed to bring himself strictly within the continuing care exception to the medical malpractice statute of limitations, and, in fact, the summary judgment record clearly takes him outside the purported exception. I would therefore find that the statute of limitations had run on all of Templeton’s claims and would affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in its entirety.”

Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

Templeton v. Orth (MLW No.79690/Case No. WD85405 – 34 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Pfeiffer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Clay County, Chamberlain, J. (Brian F. McCallister, Kansas City, MO for appellant) (BK Christopher and Matthew R. Klose, Kansas City, MO for respondents).