Smith v. Boyett: CO High Court Clarifies Medical Concealment Rule

In Smith v. Boyett, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed a decision allowing Patricia and Gary Boyett’s medical malpractice lawsuit to proceed despite being filed outside the typical statute of limitations. The court clarified the legal standard for the “knowing concealment” exception under Colorado’s medical malpractice statute of limitations and concluded that factual disputes precluded summary judgment.

Gallbladder Surgery and Postoperative Complications

In December 1985, Dr. Stuart L. Smith performed gallbladder surgery on Patricia Boyett at Lutheran Medical Center. During the operation, Dr. Smith explored Boyett’s common bile duct and inadvertently perforated it, resulting in a bile leak that caused extensive pancreatic damage. Cholangiograms taken during the surgery later showed evidence of dye leaking from the common duct.

Boyett was discharged on January 7, 1986, but her condition worsened, prompting readmission to the hospital three days later. On January 17, Dr. Smith informed Boyett that the hole in her duct was caused by a gallstone. She was transferred to another hospital the next day and did not have further contact with Dr. Smith.

Boyett later discovered in 1989 that the duct perforation was caused during surgery and not by a gallstone. She and her husband filed suit in December 1990—nearly five years after the surgery—alleging that Dr. Smith negligently failed to discover and treat the injury during surgery and intentionally misrepresented the cause.

Summary Judgment Based on Statute of Limitations

Dr. Smith moved for summary judgment, citing Colorado’s medical malpractice statute of limitations, which required actions to be filed within two years of discovering the injury and no later than three years from the negligent act. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that the Boyetts failed to meet the requirements of the statute’s knowing concealment exception.

The trial court applied the standard from Adams v. Richardson, which had interpreted the concealment exception as requiring the plaintiff to suspect negligence, confront the physician, and then be misled. The court found that the Boyetts did not suspect wrongdoing at the time of Dr. Smith’s statements and thus could not invoke the exception.

Colorado Supreme Court’s Interpretation of “Knowing Concealment”

On review, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that:

• A plaintiff does not need to suspect negligence or confront the physician to invoke the knowing concealment exception.

• The key inquiry is whether the physician knew of the negligent act or omission and intentionally misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that impeded discovery of that negligence.

The court noted that a plaintiff may rely on indirect evidence and inferences to prove knowing concealment. In this case, the radiologist’s report and operative cholangiograms supported an inference that Dr. Smith knew the perforation occurred during surgery. His later attribution of the injury to a gallstone, according to expert testimony, was medically implausible and could be viewed as an affirmative misrepresentation.

Because the Boyetts presented evidence from which a jury could infer knowing concealment, the Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Legal Support for Medical Malpractice Claims

Understanding your rights in a medical malpractice case can be challenging. Our attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC assist individuals with evaluating potential claims, navigating the legal process, and addressing concerns related to healthcare provider negligence under Colorado law.