Arnold v. White (2012)

A defendant must establish the moment when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered through reasonable diligence “facts that would lead an ordinary person . . . to conclude that a claim for negligence may exist.” Arnold IV, 2012 UT 61, ¶¶ 18, 21 (citation omitted). ¶27 We conclude that the trial court’s jury instructions as a whole correctly conveyed the law regarding when a plaintiff discovers negligence for purposes of triggering the statute of limitations. “[W]e…

Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011). 26 Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). 27 Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002). 28 Bistine v. Parker, 918 F.3d 849, 876 (10th Cir. 2019). 29 Miller v. Shell Oil Co., 345 F.2d 891, 893 (10th Cir. 1965). 30 See Docket No. 26, at 2. 31 See Docket No. 30, at 2. complaint itself,”32 and the Patels “need not anticipate any affirmative defenses that may be …

The panel does not make determinations regarding applicability of the statute of limitations—that is the province of the court. has knowledge or constructive knowledge of the facts underlying their malpractice claim—in other words, their legal injury: (1) the physical injury, (2) the causal event of the injury, and (3) that negligence (a breach in the standard of care) caused the injury.” Id. at 939 (citation omitted). “[A] patient’s mere suspicion that her doctor was neglig…

See Arnold v. Grigsby , 2012 UT 61 , ¶ 13, 289 P.3d 449 ("The Utah Health Care Malpractice Act provides ... a four-year statute of repose for the filing of medical malpractice actions."); Lee v. Gaufin , 867 P.2d 572 , 574 (Utah 1993) (referring to the same four-year period in UHMA as a "statute of repose"); Sorensen v. Larsen , 740 P.2d 1336 , 1336 (Utah 1987) (same).