MN: Examinations are Not Treatment: `Continuous Treatment' Doctrine Inapplicable.

CASE FACTS: Patricia Larsen was hospitalized at Mayo Medical Center (Mayo) from June 27, 1996 to July 6, 1996. She was diagnosed with bacterial endocarditis. As part of her treatment, the antibiotic Gentamicin was prescribed and administered. On July 19, 1996, the patient returned to Mayo, complaining of dizziness and nausea, and was hospitalized. She was diagnosed with Gentamicin vestibular ototoxicity, an illness caused solely by ingesting the antibiotic. During her hospitalization, Mayo personnel told the patient that she might "never completely recover from the illness." She was further informed about the nature of the illness, how it would affect her, and the option of undergoing vestibular rehabilitation. The patient was discharged from Mayo on July 24, 1996. She returned on September 5 and September 13 for follow-up examinations. The patient filed suit in Federal Court for medical malpractice against Mayo on May 29, 1998. On June 1, 1998, the patient attempted to make service of process on Mayo by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint and enclosing a form for Mayo to return. Mayo received the materials two days later, but did not sign and return the form. On June 15, 1998, the patient's counsel contacted Mayo's in-house counsel, who informed him that Mayo would not accept service. On June 22, 1998, the patient filed an amended complaint. She again mailed copies to Mayo. Finally, the patient mailed copies of the amended summons and complaint to the County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department served Mayo the following day. Mayo moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the patient's claim was time-barred. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment. The patient appealed.

COURT'S OPINION: The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The court held, inter alia, that the two-year statute of limitations applicable in Minnesota barred the patient's claim. The court refused to accept the patient's argument she had two years from the last day she was examined, to wit, September 13, 1996, to bring suit. The court found that the patient was "fully aware" of the facts upon which her claim was based by July 23, 1996. The court concluded that the service of process on Mayo was not effective until September 8, 1998, the date the sheriff made service of process on Mayo. Since the condition from which the patient suffered could not be "relieved by treatment," the visits to Mayo through September 13 were strictly for examination and did not constitute "continuous treatment." Larsen v. Mayo Medical Center, 218 F.3d 863 -- MN (2000)

Meet the Editor & Publisher: A David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for nearly 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Providence, R.I., form of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Reagan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale-Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers and Marquis Who's Who in American Law.