University of Miami v. Bogorff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the statute of repose barred parents' suit for negligent administration of cancer treatment even though the doctor fraudulently told them that their son's coma and paralysis resulted from other causes
• medical malpractice action was barred, because plaintiffs were aware within the repose period of the severe injury their son suffered
• where child became comatose three months after medical treatment, parents were on notice of the \possible invasion\ of their legal rights and the limitation period began running
• \[T]he limitation period commences when the plaintiff should have known of either (1) the injury or (2) the negligent act.\ [2]
• “Even if there were fraudulent concealment by Dr. Koch, however, we find the Bogorffs’ complaint against Koch and the University of Miami barred by the repose period . . . .”
• \A summary judgment is properly rendered only upon showing a complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).