Kastle v. Salem Hospital

When faced with a statute of limitations defense, “a complaint does not have to show that the action is timely; it suffices if the complaint does not reveal on its face that the action is not timely.”

Plaintiff (Kastle) appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his lawsuit. Kastle assigned error to the trial court’s conclusion that the operative complaint showed that he failed to commence the action within the two-year statute of limitations after he discovered or reasonably should have discovered his claim. On appeal, Kastle argued the trial court erred because his complaint did not show on its face that he discovered the new Defendants’ role in his injury more than two years before he filed. Defendants argued that the statute of limitations barred Kastle’s amended complaint because it failed to allege facts from which it could be inferred that he discovered his claim against them within the two years before he filed. To overcome a motion to dismiss under an ORCP 21 A(9) statute of limitations defense, “a complaint does not have to show that the action is timely; it suffices if the complaint does not reveal on its face that the action is not timely.” Munsey v. Plumbers’ Local No. 51, 85 Or App 396 (1987). The Court concluded that nothing in Kastle’s operative complaint showed that he discovered or reasonably should have discovered the additional Defendants’ roles in his injury more than two years before he amended the complaint to add them as defendants. Therefore, his complaint did not reveal, on its face, that the statute of limitations had run.  Reversed and remanded.