# Choroszy v. Tso

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · September 20, 1994 · 647 A.2d 803

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702818

## Case

- **Full name:** Rodney P. CHOROSZY and Debra Choroszy v. Siew S. TSO
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** September 20, 1994
- **Citations:** 647 A.2d 803; 1994 Me. LEXIS 184
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Wathen, Roberts, Glassman, Clifford, Rudman, Dana, Lipez
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702818

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the statutory scheme

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice,
with whom GLASSMAN and DANA, JJ., join, concurring.
I agree to affirm the decision of the Superior Court. I write separately because I do not agree with the analysis of Part I of the Court’s opinion. Instead, I would adopt the reasoning of the trial court.
Rather than accept the Choroszys’ position that they “reasonably could not have known” of the negligence of Tso, the trial court analyzed the difference between Choroszy’s situation and that of the foreign object surgical malpractice patient. I agree with that court’s conclusion, that it would not be unreasonable to expect Choroszy to seek a second opinion or to return to Tso because his hearing had not improved. In such circumstances, the application of the three-year statute of limitations cannot be said to violate Article I, section 19 of the Maine Constitution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702818. Public record. Not legal advice.