Date: 07-09-2003

Case Style: Piper L. Snowton v. Presbyterian Hospital, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 03-6017

Judge: Terrence L. O'Brien

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description: On December 6, 2002, Ms. Snowton filed suit against Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. (a/k/a Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc., a/k/a HCA Presbyterian Hospital), South Community Hospital (a/k/a Integris Southwest Medical Center, Inc.), the Oklahoma State Department of Health, the Oklahoma County Health Department, the Sylvan N. Goldman Center, the Oklahoma Blood Institute, and the Oklahoma Industrial Authority, alleging violation of her constitutional and civil rights, personal injuries, mental anguish, and conspiracy. Her claims arise from surgeries she underwent in 1985 and/or 1989, involving possible HIV/AIDS blood contamination. By way of relief, she seeks compensatory and punitive damages of $100,000,000.00 from each Defendant. The district court correctly construed her complaint to assert jurisdiction based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights violation) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (diversity of citizenship). Concluding Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury controls both causes of action, the district court dismissed Ms. Snowton's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We agree.

Actions under § 1983 are subject to the statute of limitations for personal injury in effect in the state where the alleged violations occurred. See Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640, 642 (10th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). In Oklahoma, the applicable period of limitation is two years. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1522 (10th Cir. 1988); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95 (2003). The same limitation period governs diversity cases under § 1331. See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). Because Ms. Snowton's complaint, filed in December 2002, arose from injuries alleged to have occurred no later than 1989, her claims are time-barred.

Outcome: Accordingly, we adopt the reasoning of the district court and AFFIRM.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Not a reported decision.

Digested by Kent Morlan