Evans v. Wright

554 P.3d 591

Roberta Ann EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Mark B. WRIGHT, M.D., St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center, Ltd., Defendants-Respondents.

Docket No. 50094

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2024 Term.

Opinion Filed: August 19, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Michael P. Tribe, District Judge.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Points Law, PLLC, Boise, for Appellant Roberta Ann Evans. Michelle R. Points argued.

Tolman Brizee & Cannon, P.C., Twin Falls, for Respondent Mark B. Wright. Casey Hemmer argued.

Quane McColl, PLLC, Boise, for Respondent St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center. Anita Hurlburt argued.

MEYER, Justice.

This case concerns a medical malpractice action arising from a total hip replacement surgery performed on Roberta Evans by Dr. Mark B. Wright, at St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center (St. Luke’s). In the months after the surgery, Evans consistently complained about pain and discomfort at several follow-up appointments. After the pain persisted, she sought a second opinion from a doctor who confirmed that Evans’s hip bone socket was abnormally anteverted.¹ Evans underwent revision surgery, which also revealed significant findings of periprosthetic joint infection.

Evans initiated a lawsuit against Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s, alleging negligence in their follow-up care and treatment of her. On Dr. Wright’s and St. Luke’s motions, the district court dismissed the case, finding that Evans’s cause of action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 5-219(4). Because Evans’s surgical complications consistent with abnormal anteversion and impingement were objectively ascertainable by March 4, 2019, revealing that some damage was present, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On August 7, 2018, Evans had a total hip replacement performed by Dr. Wright at St. Luke’s Magic Valley Regional Medical Center in Twin Falls, Idaho. After the surgery, Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s reported to Evans that post-operative imaging showed that the components were in "excellent" position with no signs of complications. In the following months, Evans reported experiencing several types of pain, such as incision pain, thigh pain, groin hip pain, and discomfort during intimacy. She also felt that her hip was abnormal and complained that it was "catching" or "clicking." Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s informed her that if her complaints did not subside in the next nine months, they might need to consider other options but during the interim they would wait and see if the issues resolved.

The following year, Evans had several follow-up appointments in which she expressed her continued pain and discomfort in her left hip. At those appointments, X-ray images were taken. Although different treatment options were recommended related to daily activities and exercise, the pain persisted. Evans independently chose to seek a second opinion, and on June 17, 2019, she visited Dr. Greg Irvine at St. Luke’s Clinic-Orthopedics in McCall. Dr. Irvine reviewed the imaging taken on April 22, 2019. He noted that the imaging depicted the "acetabular component appears to be abnormally anteverted and perhaps a bit vertical." Dr. Irvine’s plan included a CT scan the following day, which Dr. Irvine interpreted as "[h]ip is anteverted about 65 degrees with the neck of the femur impinging on the posterior acetabular component rim, causing a high likelihood of anterior subluxation."

Evans was referred to Dr. Jared Armstrong for a surgical consultation and was seen on July 8, 2019. Dr. Armstrong reviewed Evans’s previous imaging and CT scan and assessed that Evans had a "failed left total hip arthroplasty – impingement of femoral stem on posterior acetabular cup; left hip and thigh pain." An arthroplasty revision was then scheduled. On October 19, 2019, Evans underwent revision surgery with Dr. Armstrong. The surgery confirmed that Evans had "significant findings" of periprosthetic joint infection and metallosis.² Dr. Armstrong found "[t]here was a groove worn on the posterior femoral stem along the posterior femoral neck consistent with impingement on the acetabular wall."

On April 6, 2021, Evans filed her prelitigation screening application with the Idaho State Board of Medicine. On August 19, 2021, Evans filed her complaint and demand for jury trial. Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s subsequently filed respective motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings and memoranda in support. Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s argued that Evans’s cause of action was time-barred.

On April 5, 2022, Evans filed a response to the motions to dismiss and a personal declaration in support of her response. Evans also filed a motion to convert the motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c), "so that the Court may review the Declaration of Roberta Ann Evans and the medical records attached thereto." Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s moved to strike Evans’s declaration.

On April 19, 2022, Evans’s motion to convert came before the district court with several other motions, including Dr. Wright’s and St. Luke’s separate motions to dismiss, motions to strike the declaration of Roberta Evans, and motions to shorten time for the hearing on their motions to strike. Evans’s declaration, with numerous medical records attached, accompanied her motion to convert the motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment so that the district court could consider matters outside the pleadings. At the hearing, the district court first heard the parties’ arguments and granted, from the bench, Dr. Wright’s and St. Luke’s motions to strike Evans’s declaration. The district court then took the motions to dismiss under advisement.

On May 2, 2022, the district court granted Dr. Wright’s and St. Luke’s motions to dismiss. On May 4, 2022, final judgment was entered. On May 17, 2022, Evans filed a motion for reconsideration, a memorandum in support, and an alternative motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. After oral argument was held on Evans’s motion for reconsideration, the district court issued a written decision denying Evans’s motion on July 28, 2022.

On September 8, 2022, Evans filed her notice of appeal. On April 6, 2023, Dr. Wright filed a motion to dismiss appeal, and St. Luke’s joined in Dr. Wright’s motion. This Court denied Dr. Wright’s motion to dismiss but requested the parties include briefing on the motion to dismiss appeal in their substantive briefs.

II. Issues on Appeal

1. Was Evans’s notice of appeal timely filed?

2. Is Evans’s motion to convert properly before this Court?

3. Did the district court err in dismissing Evan’s amended complaint as time-barred under the statute of limitations?

4. Did the district court err in failing to consider Evans’s equitable estoppel argument?

5. Are Dr. Wright and St. Luke’s entitled to attorney fees on appeal?

III. Standards of Review

[1–4] A district court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed de novo. Paslay v. A&B Irrigation Dist., 162 Idaho 866, 868, 406 P.3d 878, 880 (2017). "A 12(b)(6) motion looks only at the pleadings to determine whether a claim for relief has been stated." Hammer v. Ribi, 162 Idaho 570, 573, 401 P.3d 148, 151 (2017) (quoting Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 104, 44 P.3d 1157, 1159 (2002)). A case should not be dismissed for failure to present a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts supporting the claim that would entitle her to relief. Paslay, 162 Idaho at 869, 406 P.3d at 881 (citation omitted). On review of a dismissal, this Court determines whether the non-movant has alleged sufficient facts to support her claim, which, if true, would entitle her to relief. Hammer, 162 Idaho at 573, 401 P.3d at 151 (citation omitted). In doing so, we draw "all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Id. (quoting Idaho Wool Growers Ass’n, Inc. v. State, 154 Idaho 716, 720, 302 P.3d 341, 345 (2012)).

[5–7] When reviewing the trial court’s decision to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, courts apply an abuse of discretion standard. See Hamilton Materials, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Corp., 494 F.3d 1203, 1206 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), which is identical to I.R.C.P. 12(b)). This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard to review the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. Phillips v. E. Idaho Health Serve., Inc., 166 Idaho 731, 741, 463 P.3d 365, 375 (2020). "Evidentiary rulings that constitute an abuse of discretion will not be reversed unless ‘a substantial right of the party is affected.’" Id. (quoting Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., Inc., 156 Idaho 696, 701, 330 P.3d 1054, 1059 (2014)).

[8] We apply our well-known abuse of discretion standard to review discretionary decisions of a trial court, which requires us to consider "[w]hether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason." Lunneborg v. My Fan Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).

[9–11] The interpretation of a statute or court rule is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review. See E. Idaho Econ. Dev. Council v. Lockwood Packaging Corp. Idaho, 139 Idaho 492, 495, 80 P.3d 1093, 1096 (2003); City of Idaho Falls v. H-K Contractors, Inc., 163 Idaho 579, 581, 416 P.3d 951, 953 (2018). "The date for when a cause of action accrues may be a question of fact or law." Walsh v. Swapp Law, PLLC, 166 Idaho 629, 635, 462 P.3d 607, 613 (2020) (citation omitted). "[I]f no disputed issues of material fact exist, when a cause of...