Provosty v. Lydia E. Hall Hospital

Leo and Mildred Provosty (plaintiffs) brought a medical-malpractice suit against Lydia E. Hall Hospital (hospital) and several doctors that were affiliated with the hospital (collectively, defendants). The first paragraph of the complaint alleged that the hospital was a domestic corporation. However, the hospital was not a corporation; rather, it was an entity solely owned by Dr. Carl H. Neuman. Indeed, Neuman previously filed with the relevant county clerk a certificate indicating that the hospital was merely doing business as the Lydia E. Hall Hospital. Accordingly, in its answer to the complaint, the hospital specifically denied the allegations of the first paragraph of the complaint and asserted as an affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the hospital. Moreover, in July 1979, approximately three months before the expiration of the statute of limitations on the Provostys’ claim, the Provostys’ attorney was advised at a deposition that the hospital was an entity solely owned by Neuman and was not a corporation. The Provostys had not served Neuman with process or named him as a defendant, yet the Provostys did not address these issues for several months, until they filed a new, nearly identical malpractice suit against Neuman, doing business as Lydia E. Hall Hospital. However, the Provostys filed their second suit after the statute of limitations had expired. Neuman’s answer raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Neuman also moved to dismiss the Provostys’ first suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Provostys responded by cross-moving to strike Neuman’s statute-of-limitations defense. Among other things, the Provostys argued that Neuman should be equitably estopped from pursuing a statute-of-limitations defense because the hospital’s answer to the first suit misled the Provostys into believing that the hospital was a separate legal entity or at least failed to inform the Provostys of the hospital’s true legal status. The supreme court denied Neuman’s motion to dismiss the first suit and granted the Provostys’ motion to strike Neuman’s statute-of-limitations defense. Neuman appealed.