McCarthy v. Getz
- Kelly McCarthy, Plaintiff, Appellant,
Ariane Getz, PSYD, Defendant, Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : MALPRACTICE
- Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CV-00236
Southeast Judicial District, Richland County
Bradley Allen Cruff
Parties' Statement of Issues
Where Plaintiff's daughter died of suicide and the cause of action against decedent's treating psychologist was commenced two years and 52 days after the date of death, did the trial court err as a matter of law in granting summary judgment in favor of the treating psychologist, even though Plaintiff claimed the 2 year limitation of actions was tolled under the "discovery rule?"
[¶1] The district court correctly determined that Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
[¶2] If Plaintiff’s claims are not time-barred, the district court erred in excusing the Plaintiff from the requirement under North Dakota law that all elements of a medical malpractice claim, including causation, must be proved with expert testimony.
Kelly McCarthy appeals from a district court order granting Dr. Ariane Getz’s motion for summary judgment.
McCarthy’s daughter received psychological counseling from Dr. Ariane Getz for several months beginning in February 2015. On September 23, 2015, McCarthy’s daughter died by suicide. On November 9, 2017 McCarthy filed a summons and complaint alleging malpractice against Dr. Getz. On November 14, 2017 the summons and complaint were served on Dr. Getz. On May 23, 2018, Dr. Getz moved for summary judgment, alleging McCarthy’s claims were time-barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18. The district court granted summary judgment.
On appeal, McCarthy argues the district court erred by granting summary judgment because the statute of limitations was tolled as McCarthy did not know of Dr. Getz’s malpractice on the date of her daughter’s death and therefore the statute of limitations did not accrue on the exact date of the death.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||11/21/2018||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 11/21/2018|
|2||11/21/2018||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 11/29/2018|
|3||11/21/2018||MOTION FOR EXT. OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|5||11/26/2018||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted|
|6||11/26/2018||ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL|
|7||11/27/2018||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|8||11/27/2018||Notice served on Mark A. Meyer, Robert J. Udland, & Charlotte J.Skar Rusch|
|9||12/05/2018||NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL|
|10||12/05/2018||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF CROSS-APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|11||12/05/2018||Notice served on Udland, Charlotte J. Skar Rusch and Mark A. Meyer|
|12||12/20/2018||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED DECEMBER 19, 2018 (ENTRY NOS. 1-59)|
|13||01/11/2019||Notice of Attorney Udland's retirement|
|14||01/23/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED AUGUST 21, 2018 & C.O.S.|
|15||03/01/2019||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|16||03/01/2019||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 04/03/2019|
|17||03/18/2019||APPELLANT BRIEF & ADDENDUM||View|
|19||03/22/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating|
|20||03/22/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating|
|21||03/25/2019||Rec'd $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt No. 26962)|
|23||04/18/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB from CSD|
|24||04/22/2019||Rec'd $25 e-filing surcharge for AEB (receipt #27023)|
|25||04/23/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|27||05/02/2019||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to RYB (table of authorities)|
|28||05/03/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|29||05/14/2019||REPLY BRIEF (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)||View|
|30||05/14/2019||Rec'd RYB (Appellee/Cross-Appellant) non-substantive corrections & C.O.S|
|31||05/16/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB back from Central Duplicating|