Filed: Jan. 09, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-9-2008 Farrell v. AI DuPont Hosp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3664 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Farrell v. AI DuPont Hosp" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1779. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1779 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opin
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-9-2008 Farrell v. AI DuPont Hosp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3664 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Farrell v. AI DuPont Hosp" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1779. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1779 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opini..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-9-2008
Farrell v. AI DuPont Hosp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3664
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Farrell v. AI DuPont Hosp" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1779.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1779
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 06-3664
HOLLY FARRELL, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ASHLEY MCARDLE,
A MINOR, DECEASED; HOLLY FARRELL 1, INDIVIDUALLY,
IN HER OWN RIGHT,
Appellants
v.
THE A.I. DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN OF THE NEMOURS
FOUNDATION; THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION;
M.D. WILLIAM I. NORWOOD M.D., PH.D.;
DEBORAH A. DAVIS, M.D.; RUSSELL RAPHAELY, M.D.; P. KERINS,
PERFUSIONIST; PAUL KERINS, Perfusionist, c/o A.I. DuPONT
HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. No. 04-cv-03877)
District Judge: Hon. Berle M. Schiller
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 6, 2007
Before: McKEE, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN,
Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 9, 2008)
________________
OPINION
________________
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Holly Farrell, individually and as the administratrix of the estate of Ashley
McArdle, her deceased minor daughter, appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to the defendants based upon the court’s conclusion that Farrell’s
wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice was barred by the statute of
limitations. We will affirm.
Because we write primarily for the parties, we need not recite the facts or
procedural history of this case. Farrell makes two arguments in support of her appeal.
First, she argues that the district court erred by finding that the statute of limitations was
not tolled by the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. In its thorough and well-reasoned
opinion, the district court explained why the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not
apply to Farrell’s suit. Farrell v. The A.I. duPont Hospital for Children,
2006 WL
2035146 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2006). We can add little to the district court’s excellent
analysis. Therefore, we will affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
statute of limitations grounds substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s
well reasoned opinion.
Farrell’s second argument on appeal does not appear to have been presented to the
district court, and is therefore waived. Nevertheless, we will briefly explain why the
argument lacks merit. Farrell contends that defendant William I. Norwood, M.D., Ph.D,
as a physician, was deemed to have a fiduciary relationship with her as Ashley’s mother
2
and, therefore, had a duty to inform Farrell of the potential risk of surgery and post-
operative care. She further contends that Norwood’s alleged breach of that duty
somehow tolled the statute of limitations. We disagree.
The physician-patient relationship here arose in Delaware, all medical treatment
occurred in Delaware and Ashley died in Delaware. Therefore, Delaware law applies.
See Troxel v. A.I. duPont Institute,
636 A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. Super. 1994) (state law
where medical treatment was provided generally governs substantive law). Under
Delaware law, a physician’s relationship to his/her patient and a “breach of a fiduciary
responsibility . . . has no relevance to [a] statute of limitations issue.” Shockley v. Dyer,
456 A.2d 798, 800 (Del. 1983). See also Tilden v. Anstreicher,
367 A.2d 632, 634 (Del.
1976).
Accordingly, we will affirm.
3