“[T]he legislature struck a compromise between the humane and logical results of the discovery rule on the one hand and the social cost of potentially unlimited periods of liability for medical malpractice on the other.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he legislature struck a compromise between the humane and logical results of the discovery rule on the one hand and the social cost of potentially unlimited periods of liability for medical malpractice on the other.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR.
FRANKS, Judge.
Plaintiff has timely filed a petition to rehear, asserting this Court erred in its construction of law controlling this case.
No authorities are cited in the petition not heretofore included in the briefs with the exception of Braden v. Yoder, 592 S.W.2d 896 , decided by this Court on May 25,1979. Appellant argues that to reconcile Braden with our opinion in this case “would appear to require that the three-year statute not run at all during a person’s incompetency.” We specifically held in Braden : “This three-year ceiling is unrelated to the *824 accrual of a cause of action commencing not on discovery but rather at the date of the allegedly negligent act.”, and concluded . . that T.C.A., 23-3415(a) did not eliminate the special rights of minors under T.C.A. 28-107.”
In our original opinion, we applied the Braden rule 1 to the facts under that right of action and concluded that it was lost by the running of the statute of limitations, i. e., one year after attaining her majority, T.C.A., § 28-107, which principle is conceded in the petition to rehear, quoting from 1 Am.Jur.2d, Actions, § 8.
The petition to rehear is respectfully denied.
SANDERS, J., concurs.
. In Braden the discovery doctrine was not an issue and the plaintiff filed suit prior to his nineteenth birthday.