C&P Secures Appellate Reversal from D.C. Court of Appeals in Medical Malpractice Case
In a significant appellate victory for our client Sarah Ramey, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled on April 24, 2025, that Ms. Ramey is entitled to a new trial in her medical malpractice lawsuit against Foxhall Urology and Dr. Edward Dunne.
Clinton & Peed represented Ms. Ramey on appeal, arguing that the defense verdict based upon the “discovery rule” element of the statute of limitations was the result of defendants’ misconduct during closing arguments, coupled with the trial court’s failure to address it, which undermined the fairness of the proceedings. In particular, the Court held that the defense improperly reintroduced a waived inquiry notice theory during rebuttal, violating prior court rulings and creating a “fatal risk that the jury confused what constituted knowledge sufficient to satisfy the discovery rule.” As a result, Ms. Ramey is entitled to a new trial where the jury will properly consider when she knew or should have known of her claim free from legally improper arguments.
In addition, dicta in the ruling will provide significant guidance on a retrial that will be substantially favorable to Ramey and future plaintiffs dealing with medical mysteries. Among other things, the Court agreed with Clinton & Peed that:
“A [plaintiff’s] hunch or a belief that is not presently supportable does not constitute the kind of knowledge that charges a possible plaintiff with the immediate duty to commence an action”;
“[P]atently unfounded medical advice is insufficient to accrue a cause of action”;
“[M]edical opinion cannot start the statute of limitations clock unless it passes medical—and thus legal—muster”
“[T]he inquiry turns on the sufficiency of the medical opinion, not on which physician rendered the opinion.”
The qualifications of the doctor giving it are relevant to this inquiry, though not dispositive (“the medical opinion of a specialist may be more apt to prevent a plausible medical opinion [and] the sufficiency of a specialist’s opinion is determined on a case-by-case basis”);
“[T]he discovery rule does not automatically render [even] specialist opinions sufficient”;
“In determining whether a medical opinion is sufficient, the factfinder is entitled to consider the circumstances of that advice, including the opining physician’s training and history with the plaintiff”;
“[T]he factfinder is properly empowered to weigh the evidence—including whether to infer the medical opinion of a family member-physician is reliable—in determining when a cause of action accrues”; and
“[T]he discovery rule does not turn on the subjective belief of the potential plaintiff.”
This victory ensures that she will have a fair opportunity to present her claims based on the correct legal standards during the retrial.
Tim Clinton and Matthew Peed briefed the case for Ms. Ramey, and Mr. Clinton argued it. A video of the oral argument is available here. The opinion is currently available at Ramey v. Foxhall Urology, Chartered, No. 23-CV-0672, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 89 (Apr. 24, 2025).