7 N.Y.3d 545 (2006)
A plaintiff cannot invoke equitable estoppel to toll the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case when they possessed sufficient timely knowledge to investigate a potential claim but failed to do so diligently.
Summary
Milton Putter sued North Shore University Hospital and Dr. Michael Hall, alleging he contracted hepatitis C during a quadruple bypass surgery performed by Dr. Hall. He argued the statute of limitations should be tolled under equitable estoppel because the hospital allegedly concealed Dr. Hall’s hepatitis C status. The Court of Appeals held that equitable estoppel did not apply because Putter knew soon after the surgery that he had hepatitis C, was advised by multiple medical professionals that he likely contracted it during the surgery, and failed to investigate further within the statutory period. His awareness triggered a duty to inquire, which he did not fulfill.
Facts
Milton Putter underwent quadruple bypass surgery at North Shore University Hospital in November 1993, performed by Dr. Michael Hall. Post-operative tests revealed elevated liver enzymes, leading to a diagnosis of hepatitis C, a condition he did not have before the surgery. His primary care physician and three sons (two physicians, one physician’s assistant) suspected he contracted the disease during surgery or at the hospital. In 1994, Putter contacted Dr. Bruce Farber at North Shore, who told him some cases of hepatitis C are from “unknown sources.” In 2002, the Department of Health contacted Putter about an investigation into hepatitis C infections at North Shore, revealing that several patients who had cardiac surgery by Dr. Hall had contracted the disease.
Procedural History
Putter filed suit in August 2002, alleging medical malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, finding additional discovery might support equitable estoppel. Two justices dissented. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, granting the motion to dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense in a medical malpractice action where the plaintiff had timely knowledge of a potential claim but failed to investigate it diligently.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff possessed sufficient information to trigger a duty to investigate a potential medical malpractice claim within the statute of limitations, and his reliance on a single conversation with a doctor affiliated with the defendant hospital was unreasonable given the other information available to him.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals stated that equitable estoppel prevents a defendant from using the statute of limitations as a defense only when their affirmative wrongdoing caused the delay in filing suit. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s specific actions prevented him from timely suing, relying reasonably on the defendant’s deception, fraud, or misrepresentations. Quoting Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 673 (2006), the Court reaffirmed that equitable estoppel applies ” ‘where it is the defendant’s affirmative wrongdoing . . . which produced the long delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the institution of the legal proceeding’ “. The court distinguished this case from Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 NY2d 442 (1978), where the doctor misrepresented the nature of the injury. Here, Putter was aware of his condition soon after surgery and was advised by multiple medical professionals that he likely contracted hepatitis C during the surgery or at the hospital. The court found that this knowledge triggered a duty to investigate. Putter failed to diligently investigate. The court noted, “Putter had sufficient information available to require him to investigate whether there was a basis for a medical malpractice action.” Even if Dr. Farber told Putter his disease was from “unknown sources,” the court reasoned that any reliance on this statement was unreasonable given the other information Putter possessed. Additional discovery would not change the fact that Putter had sufficient timely knowledge of the facts but failed to bring a timely suit.