Reference no: EM132287068

NEEDLE FRAGMENT LEFT IN PATIENT

Facts: On March 31, 1964, the patient-plaintiff was admitted to the medical center for treatment of metastatic malignant melanoma on her left groin. On April 6, 1964, an unknown resident performed a bone marrow biopsy. The needle broke during the procedure and a fragment lodged in the patient. The patient was told that the needle would be removed the following day, when surgery was to be performed to remove a melanoma from her groin. The operating surgeons, Dr. Peede and Dr. Kilgore, were informed of the presence of the needle fragment prior to surgery. A notation by Peede stated that the needle fragment had been removed. The needle fragment, however, had not been removed. The patient remained asymptomatic until she was hospitalized for back pain in September 1985. During her hospitalization, the patient learned that the needle fragment was still in her lower back. The needle fragment was finally removed in October 1985. The physician’s discharge report suggested that there was a probable linkage between the needle fragment and recurrent strep infections that the patient had been experiencing. Although the patient’s treating physicians had known as early as 1972 that the needle fragment had not been removed, there was no evidence that the patient was aware of this fact. The defendant physicians argued that the statute of limitations had tolled under Mississippi Code, thus barring the case from proceeding to trial. The circuit court entered a judgment for the physicians, and the plaintiff appealed.

Issue: Was the plaintiff’s malpractice action time barred?

Holding: The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s action was not time barred and was, therefore, remanded for trial.

Reason: A patient’s cause for action begins to accrue and the statute of limitations begins to run when the patient can reasonably be held to have knowledge of the disease or injury. In this instance, the patient began to experience infections and back pain in 1985. Moreover, this is the date she discovered that the needle was causing her problems, never having been informed previously that the needle from the 1964 biopsy procedure remained lodged within her.

Question/Discussion:

1. Describe under what circumstances the plaintiff’s action would have been time barred by the statute of limitations and what are the legal and ethical issues involved in this case (e.g., documentation in the medical record indicating that the needle fragment had been removed)?