Andreini v. Hultgren

860 P.2d 916 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P entered Holy Cross Hospital and underwent surgery on his right knee. Dr. R. David Beck, an orthopedic surgeon, performed the operation. He was assisted by Dr. Bruce Hultgren, an anesthesiologist, and several nurses employed by Holy Cross. While still in the hospital, P noticed a 'pins and needles' sensation in both hands. P exhibited noticeable atrophy in both hands. His discharge summary indicated that he had sustained a bilateral ulnar neuropathy, a deterioration of the nerves extending from his arms into both hands. P claims that Beck told him his condition was probably the result of lying in bed or that it could be due to 'heredity' or his 'physical structure.' On July 2, 1987, P visited Dr. Nathaniel M. Nord, who informed him that he had suffered a compression paralysis of both hands. Nord did not express an opinion as to the cause. After Nord reported his findings to Beck, Beck suggested to P that a second surgery be performed to correct the condition. Beck said that he would ask the hospital to waive its charges for the corrective surgery and that he would allow P to make payments to cover his fee. The surgery was scheduled for July 9, 1987. One week before the scheduled operation, a nurse apparently not associated with Ds told Andreini that the compression paralysis in his hands might have resulted from the improper strapping of his wrists during surgery. P claims this was the first time he became aware that improper strapping was a possible cause of his injury. On July 9th, P arrived and was prepared for surgery. About one hour before surgery was to begin, a Holy Cross employee presented P with a release form and asked him to sign it. P refused. Beck talked to P by phone. Beck told P that he would not perform the surgery unless P released both him and Holy Cross from future liability. Visibly upset, P signed the form and underwent the operation. The procedure was unsuccessful. P has lost most of the dexterity in his hands and cannot perform any activity that requires grasping or holding. On May 12, 1989, P served Ds with a notice of intent to commence an action. Ds, moved for summary judgment. the court found that P's action was time-barred under section 78-14-4(1)'s two-year limitation period. It found that P had failed to follow section 78-14-12's procedural requirements by failing to file his request for prelitigation review within sixty days of serving Ds with the notice of intent. With respect to the claims against Beck and Holy Cross, the court found that P had released both parties from liability and, as a matter of law, had not signed the form under duress. P appealed. P admits to signing the release form but claims that he did so under duress and therefore is not bound by its terms.