I am writing to inform you of an opinion rendered by Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals on September 30, 2010. In Little v. State, the Court of Appeals interpreted the accrual date of a cause of action in relation to Arizona’s notice of claim statute, found at Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01. In short, the Court held that a cause of action accrues, thus starting the 180-day time period to file a notice of claim against a public entity, “when a reasonable person would have been on notice to investigate.”
This matter arose from a medical malpractice/wrongful death action filed by mother of the decedent, University of Arizona basketball player, Shawntinice Little. Shawntinice collapsed and died in the training room on September 26, 2005, as a result of a blood clot in her lung caused by deep-vein thrombosis. At Shawntinice’s funeral, TV reporter Len Johnson approached her mother about making a documentary about Shawntinice’s death. Following his investigation, he filed a complaint on July 1, 2007, on Little’s behalf, with the Arizona Medical Board against Shawntinice’s doctor at the University of Arizona campus health services. The Board ruled on February 7, 2008 that the physician’s care constituted “unprofessional conduct” and issued a letter of reprimand for his failure to consider and/or pursue a diagnosis of pulmonary embolus, perform adequate examination, or measure vital signs.
Little filed a notice of claim pursuant to § 12-821.01 on May 15, 2008. The trial court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the cause of action accrued on July 1, 2007 and that Little failed to comply with the notice of claim statute. Little appealed, first asserting that the claim did not accrue until the February 7, 2008 decision of the Board, or alternatively, that any untimeliness should be excused based on equitable estoppel or tolling, alleging that she did not know the contents of the complaint, that Johnson’s opinion of negligence could not be imputed to her, and that the cause of action did not accrue until she received information from a medical expert.
The Court was not persuaded by Little’s arguments. Instead, it found that by making the report to the Board, Little took a “significant step,” essentially alleging the physician’s malpractice, initiating an investigation, and expressly identifying the acts and events that caused her damage. The Court held that a plaintiff need not know all the facts, but simply possess “a minimum requisite of knowledge” sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury. The standard is much lower than that asserted by Little – one of when “a reasonable person would have been on notice to investigate.” Therefore, no conclusive advice from a medical professional is needed for a cause of action for medical negligence to accrue.
Additionally, the Court held that because Johnson was Little’s agent, his knowledge and understanding was properly imputed to her. Little’s arguments for equitable estoppel and tolling were similarly rejected. The Court held that application of these principals requires “extraordinary circumstances” and not “garden variety claims of excusable neglect.” Little simply failed to meet this high standard, and therefore, summary judgment was appropriate as a matter of law.
The members of The Ledbetter Law Firm strive to stay ahead of all changes in the law that may affect our clients. I hope you find this information useful and enlightening, and look forward to hearing from you should you have any questions or comments regarding this recent development.
If you have any questions about the case, please feel free to call.
