## Facts

- Wanda Crumpton underwent surgery at a hospital owned by Humana, Inc. in Hobbs, New Mexico.
- On February 11, 1979, an attending nurse, Mary Harper, R.N., attempted to lower Crumpton’s hospital bed; Crumpton alleged the bed was handled improperly, injuring her neck and legs.
- Crumpton received continuing medical treatment and experienced ongoing symptoms that she attributed to the February 11, 1979 incident.
- Crumpton engaged in settlement negotiations with Humana before filing suit.
- In deposition testimony, Crumpton identified February 11, 1979 as the date her injuries occurred.
- Jack and Wanda Crumpton filed a medical malpractice complaint on February 15, 1982, more than three years after the alleged injury.

## Issues

1. When the alleged negligent act and injury occur contemporaneously and the injury is physically objective and ascertainable, does the three-year limitations period begin to run on the injury date?
2. Are settlement negotiations, without fraud or other recognized equitable grounds, sufficient to toll the three-year statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action?

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Humana, Inc. and Mary Harper, R.N.
- The court held the cause of action accrued on February 11, 1979 because the alleged injury was then ascertainable and tied to the same event as the alleged malpractice.
- The court held continuing treatment did not make the injury date unascertainable and did not delay accrual.
- The court held settlement negotiations did not toll the statute of limitations absent fraud or comparable grounds for tolling.
- The court characterized the appeal as frivolous in light of the clear limitations bar.

## Legal Principles

- In New Mexico medical malpractice actions governed by the Medical Malpractice Act and the general three-year tort statute, the limitations period runs from the date of injury or alleged malpractice when the injury manifests in a physically objective manner and is ascertainable.
- Ongoing treatment or continuing symptoms, standing alone, do not postpone accrual when the plaintiff can identify the injury-causing event and the injury is objectively apparent.
- Settlement negotiations do not suspend the limitations period absent fraudulent concealment or other legally recognized bases for equitable tolling.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when undisputed facts (including the plaintiff’s testimony) establish accrual outside the limitations period.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff’s own testimony fixed an objectively ascertainable injury on February 11, 1979 and the complaint was filed more than three years later, the claim was time-barred, and neither continuing treatment nor settlement negotiations tolled the limitations period absent fraud or other recognized tolling grounds.


Crumpton v. Humana, Inc., 99 N.M. 562, 661 P.2d 54 (N.M. 1983)