From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Milani

Supreme Court of Texas
Mar 13, 1985
686 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1985)

Summary

holding former article 5537, tolling limitations by absence from State, is part of the "other law" expressly made inapplicable by operation of article 4590i, section 10.01

Summary of this case from Jones v. Miller

Opinion

No. C-3612.

March 13, 1985.

Appeal from the 207th District Court, Comal County, Robert T. Pfeuffer, J.

Gibbins, Burrow Bratton, R. Louis Bratton, Austin, for petitioner.

Pierre A. Kleff, Jr., Killeen, for respondent.


This is an appeal from a summary judgment construing the two-year limitations provision of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i § 10.01 (Vernon Supp. 1985).

On August 24, 1980, Wiley E. Hill was bitten by a rattlesnake and treated by Dr. John C. Milani, Jr. Hill filed suit on November 2, 1982, alleging that Dr. Milani was negligent in treating the snakebite. Dr. Milani moved for summary judgment, alleging that Hill's action was barred by limitations.

At the summary judgment hearing, argument focused on the question of whether Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5537 (Vernon 1958) tolled the limitations period while Dr. Milani was absent from the state. The judgment, in fact, recites a stipulation that the interaction of art. 5537 and art. 4590i § 10.01 was the sole issue in dispute. This stipulation was facially valid as a Rule 11 agreement, under this court's decision in City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 677 (Tex. 1979), and its validity is not questioned by point of error in this court. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 11. In view of this stipulation, the trial court declined to consider, on motion for rehearing of the summary judgment, the new question of whether the limitations period was tolled for a period of 75 days by the timely sending of a notice letter. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4590i § 4.01(a), (c) (Vernon Supp. 1985). Petitioner does not complain of this action.

The sole issue thus presented for this court's consideration is whether the tolling provision of art. 5537 affects the two-year limitation provision of art. 4590i § 10.01. The trial court held that it does not, and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed. 678 S.W.2d 203. We affirm the judgments of the courts below.

Article 4590i § 10.01 provides, in relevant part, that

" Notwithstanding any other law, no health care liability claim may be commenced unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the subject of the claim or the hospitalization for which the claim is made is completed. . . ."

(emphasis added) The language of the statute is clear and exclusive. Elsewhere in the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act, limited tolling provisions are contained, suspending the statute during minority, § 10.01, and upon the giving of notice. § 4.01(c). Article 5537 is not part of the statutory scheme for medical malpractice claims envisioned by the legislature, and is part of the "other law" expressly made inapplicable by operation of statute.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the courts below are affirmed.


Summaries of

Hill v. Milani

Supreme Court of Texas
Mar 13, 1985
686 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1985)

holding former article 5537, tolling limitations by absence from State, is part of the "other law" expressly made inapplicable by operation of article 4590i, section 10.01

Summary of this case from Jones v. Miller

In Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1985), we considered whether the absence-from-the-state tolling provision in article 5537 can affect the two-year limitations period in section 10.01.

Summary of this case from Chilkewitz v. Hyson

In Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985), the supreme court held that provision is inapplicable in a medical malpractice case because of the restrictive language of section 10.01.

Summary of this case from Hyson v. Chilkewitz

In Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985), the Supreme Court held that the tolling provision of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5537 (Vernon 1958), tolling the limitation periods when defendant is absent from state, does not toll the statute of limitations of the medical liability act. 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985).

Summary of this case from Bangert ex rel. Bangert v. Baylor College of Medicine

In Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985), however, the Texas Supreme Court specifically held that the "notwithstanding any other law" language in § 10.01 precludes any tolling of limitations that is not contained in the Medical Liability Act itself.

Summary of this case from Campos v. Ysleta General Hospital

declining to apply article 5537 (now TEX.CIV.PRAC. REM.CODE ANN. Sec. 16.063) which suspends the statute of limitations while a person is temporarily absent from the state, to cases filed under article 4590i

Summary of this case from Palla v. McDonald

In Hill, the supreme court held article 5537 is not part of the statutory scheme envisioned by the legislature for medical malpractice claims and that it is part of the "other law" expressly made inapplicable by the statute.

Summary of this case from Waters ex Rel. Walton v. Del-Ky Inc.

In Hill, the Court was confronted with the issue of whether the tolling provision of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5537 (Vernon 1958) affects the two-year limitation provision of article 4590i, Sec. 10.01.

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Rudd

In Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985), our Supreme Court considered whether article 5537 (now Tex.Civ.Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 16.063), dealing with temporary absence from the state, affects the two-year limitation of article 4590i, § 10.01. The Court held that an absence from this state was not a specific tolling provision within the confines of article 4590i, but was part of the "other law" and as such could not override the two-year limitations statute.

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. Memorial Medical Center Hospital

In Hill, the Texas Supreme Court decided the narrow issue that article 5537, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. (Vernon 1958), did not toll the two-year limitations period of article 4590i, section 10.01, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. (Vernon Supp. 1985), while the defendant was absent from the state.

Summary of this case from Bradley v. Etessam

In Hill, the plaintiff did not file his case within the two-year period and sought to defeat the limitations defense on the basis that article 5537 suspended the limitations provision of section 10.01.

Summary of this case from Bradley v. Etessam
Case details for

Hill v. Milani

Case Details

Full title:Wiley E. HILL, Petitioner, v. Dr. John C. MILANI, Jr., Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Mar 13, 1985

Citations

686 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1985)

Citing Cases

Hyson v. Chilkewitz

Indeed, as this Court has stated "[t]he language of section 10.01 is clear and exclusive. . . . The Act…

Waters ex Rel. Walton v. Del-Ky Inc.

The language of section 10.01 is clear and exclusive. See Hill v. Milani, 686 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex. 1985).…