Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against various healthcare providers and institutions, which was ultimately dismissed due to being time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Utah Code § 78-14-4(1). Initially, the plaintiff discovered his potential claim on October 3, 1990, and served a notice of intent to sue on October 1, 1992, effectively extending the filing deadline by 120 days pursuant to Utah Code § 78-14-8. However, the plaintiff did not comply with the statutory requirement to file a request for prelitigation panel review within sixty days, as mandated by Utah Code § 78-14-12(2)(a). This procedural misstep led to the dismissal of the initial request and rendered the subsequent lawsuit untimely, as it was filed after the extended deadline had lapsed. On appeal, the plaintiff attempted to argue for tolling under the savings statute § 78-12-40, but this argument was not entertained, as it was not raised in the trial court. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the action was not filed within the permissible timeframe, and no exceptions applied to extend the limitations period. The decision was unanimous, with all justices concurring except for Justice DURHAM, who recused herself.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review and Preservation of Issues for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court did not consider the plaintiff's new arguments regarding the tolling of the statute of limitations because they were not preserved at the trial level.
Reasoning: The court noted that since the tolling argument was not raised in the lower court, it could refuse to consider it on appeal.
Extension of Filing Deadline under Utah Code § 78-14-8subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's notice of intent to sue extended the filing deadline by 120 days; however, this extension did not save the untimely filed lawsuit.
Reasoning: Under section 78-14-8, the time for filing a malpractice action was extended by 120 days from the notice of intent, to January 29, 1998.
Prelitigation Panel Review Requirement under Utah Code § 78-14-12(2)(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirement to file a request for prelitigation panel review within sixty days after the notice of intent, which affected the tolling of the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: The plaintiff failed to file this request by the deadline of November 30, 1992, instead submitting it on January 20, 1998, which was 111 days late.
Statute of Limitations under Utah Code § 78-14-4(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was barred because it was filed after the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations.
Reasoning: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, citing that Kittredge's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Utah Code § 78-14-4(1).
Tolling of Statute of Limitations and Savings Statute § 78-12-40subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court refused to consider the plaintiff's tolling argument on appeal because it was not raised in the lower court; furthermore, the savings statute did not apply as the limitations period expired before the dismissal of the initial request.
Reasoning: Although Kittredge did not assert in the trial court that the statute was tolled by the savings statute § 78-12-40, he argued on appeal that the limitations period was extended.