Introduction

In KENYON v. HAMMER, 142 Ariz. 69 (Supreme Court of Arizona, 1984), the Arizona Supreme Court addressed critical constitutional issues surrounding the statute of limitations in medical malpractice actions. The case involved William A. Kenyon, Jr. and Sharon D. Kenyon, who sued Raymond E. Hammer, M.D., and his wife for medical malpractice. During Mrs. Kenyon's pregnancy, a clerical error misstated her Rh factor, leading to the failure to administer RhoGAM—a drug crucial for preventing immune responses in Rh-negative mothers. This negligence resulted in the wrongful death of their first child and subsequent injuries to Mrs. Kenyon. The central legal question was whether Arizona's statute of limitations for medical malpractice was constitutional, particularly regarding its interplay with the discovery rule.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Arizona vacated the lower court's judgment, reversing the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions, as codified in A.R.S. § 12-564(A), violated Article 2, § 13 of the Arizona Constitution. This decision was grounded entirely on state constitutional grounds, emphasizing that the statute's limitations period effectively barred rightful claims by imposing an unconstitutional restriction. The court mandated adherence to the discovery rule, which allows the statute of limitations to begin when the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, rather than the date of the negligent act.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal cases:

• LANDGRAFF v. WAGNER, 26 Ariz. App. 49, 546 P.2d 26 (1976): Interpreted "date of injury" as the date of the negligent act but was limited to contemporaneous injuries.
• DeBOER v. BROWN, 138 Ariz. 168, 673 P.2d 912 (1983): Established that "date of injury" aligns with the discovery rule, especially when injuries are not immediate.
• MAYER v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, 14 Ariz. App. 248, 482 P.2d 497 (1971): Formulated the discovery rule in Arizona tort law.
• EASTIN v. BROOMFIELD, 116 Ariz. 576, 570 P.2d 744 (1977): Upheld portions of the Medical Malpractice Act but identified unconstitutional elements related to access to courts.
• ALABAM'S FREIGHT CO. v. HUNT, 29 Ariz. 419, 242 P. 658 (1926): Affirmed that the constitutional protections extend to common-law negligence actions.

Legal Reasoning

The court based its decision on the Arizona Constitution's strong protections regarding the right to seek damages for injuries. Article 18, § 6, explicitly prohibits the abrogation of the right to recover damages and ensures that the amount recovered is not subject to statutory limitations. The court determined that A.R.S. § 12-564(A) improperly applied a three-year statute of limitations starting from the date of injury, effectively barring claims before the injury was discovered—thereby conflicting with the constitutionally protected right.

Additionally, the court applied the strict scrutiny standard under the Equal Protection Clause of Article 2, § 13, recognizing the right to bring an action for recovery of damages as a fundamental right. The statute's classification discriminated against medical malpractice claimants without a compelling state interest, failing to justify the unequal treatment.

Impact

This landmark decision reinstates the discovery rule in Arizona's medical malpractice cases, ensuring that plaintiffs are not unduly barred from seeking redress due to delayed discovery of injuries. It reinforces the constitutional mandate to maintain open courts and equitable access to justice. Future cases in Arizona will need to align with this precedent, potentially influencing legislative actions regarding statute limitations to comply with constitutional standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statute of Limitations

A statute of limitations sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. In this case, the statute limited plaintiffs to file a claim within three years from the date of injury.

Discovery Rule

The discovery rule delays the start of the statute of limitations until the injured party discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) the harm and its connection to the defendant's actions. This rule is crucial in cases where injuries are not immediately apparent.

Strict Scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. It requires the government to prove that the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause ensures that no individual or group is denied the same protection under the law that is enjoyed by other individuals or groups. In this case, it was applied to assess whether the statute unfairly discriminated against medical malpractice claimants.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Arizona's decision in KENYON v. HAMMER serves as a pivotal affirmation of constitutional protections in the realm of medical malpractice law. By invalidating the statute of limitations that disregarded the discovery rule, the court underscored the fundamental right to seek legal recourse when harmed by negligent medical practices. This ruling not only upholds the principles of fairness and access to justice but also delineates the boundaries of legislative power in defining limitation periods. For legal practitioners and plaintiffs alike, this judgment reinforces the necessity of aligning statutory frameworks with constitutional mandates to ensure equitable treatment under the law.