Bennet v. Mayo Clinic

Background

John Bennet had hyperaldosteronism, a condition involving excess production of the hormone aldosterone. In 2008, testing at Mayo Clinic indicated that his left adrenal gland was likely causing the condition. After consulting with Dr. William Young, Bennet agreed to a laparoscopic removal of that gland. Dr. Clive Grant performed the surgery on October 15, 2008.

Dr. Grant’s operative notes stated that the gland was difficult to locate, that a small piece separated and moved downward, and that all but a very small portion of the gland was removed. The nodule identified before surgery was included in the resection but was lost. The opinion states that Dr. Grant did not remove the adenoma. Dr. Grant later wrote that the operation had been difficult and that part of the gland remained; he also sent the operative and pathology reports to Bennet’s Chicago endocrinologist.

Bennet did not continue treatment with Dr. Grant or Dr. Young after the surgery. He later received treatment at Mayo for heart conditions in 2010 and 2011 and returned to Mayo regarding his aldosteronism in 2015, 2016, and 2018. On June 10, 2019, he underwent cryoablation of his left adrenal gland, which he maintained cured his hyperaldosteronism. Bennet then came to believe that the 2008 surgery had not succeeded and had worsened his condition.

Bennet brought one medical-malpractice claim against Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Hospital–Rochester, and Does 1–10. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule for a party when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Statute of limitations

The court applied Minnesota law, which generally gives a plaintiff four years from the date a medical-malpractice claim accrues to file suit. Ordinarily, the claim accrues when treatment for the particular condition ends. Minnesota also recognizes a single-act exception when the alleged malpractice is one completed act occurring at a definite time, cannot be cured by continued treatment, and the plaintiff knows the relevant facts. Under that exception, the claim accrues when the plaintiff is harmed by the act or, in some circumstances, when the negligent act occurs.

Bennet filed suit in 2019, nearly eleven years after the October 15, 2008 surgery. He argued that his later visits with Mayo cardiologists in 2009, 2010, and 2011 extended or paused the filing deadline because his heart conditions were affected by hyperaldosteronism. The court rejected that argument, finding no support for the proposition that seeing a specialist in another department of a hospital system pauses the deadline for an earlier procedure performed by different physicians.

The court also rejected Bennet’s reliance on a prior Minnesota case involving treatment within a hospital system. It found that case distinguishable because the patient there had been randomly assigned different providers and had continued receiving treatment in the system for the same issue after the allegedly negligent procedure. Here, Bennet had been referred to Dr. Young and then treated by Dr. Grant; those doctors stopped treating him after the surgery, and the record did not show continuous treatment at Mayo for hyperaldosteronism.

Fraudulent concealment argument

Bennet alternatively argued that Dr. Grant fraudulently concealed that the surgery was unsuccessful. The court noted that Bennet gave differing accounts of what Dr. Grant told him after surgery. Bennet later described the statement as saying that Dr. Grant had “got it all,” but previously testified that Dr. Grant said, “we had a few problems, but we got it out.” The court found the latter account consistent with Dr. Grant’s letter and the operative and pathology reports, which explained that the operation was difficult and that part of the adrenal gland remained. The court also noted that Bennet’s own surgical expert testified that a subtotal adrenalectomy can effectively treat hyperaldosteronism.

Ruling

The court concluded that the alleged negligence occurred at a definable time—October 15, 2008—and that the statute of limitations had expired before Bennet filed suit. It found no genuine dispute of material fact about the timeliness of the claim.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.