2012-06-29_Scott_Andrews_Claudia_Rohr_v_County_of_Hawaii_Order_Granting_Defendants'_Motion_to_Dismiss

Home

Case 1:10-cv-00749-DAE-KSC Document 78 Filed 06/29/12 Page 17 of 31 PagelD #: 603 likely" Andrews experienced a heart attack that day. (Id. ¶ 77.) Plaintiffs also allege that he received none of the recommended care that hospital doctors had prescribed, that his "health worsened under the harsh conditions in the jail," and that he was showing signs of distress when he returned to the hospital on December 13, 2012. (Id. ¶ 79.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs should have been aware that Andrews suffered an actual injury with respect to medical care claim the weekend that he was incarcerated. Therefore, Plaintiffs' assertion that there were "hidden and latent" injuries that took time to discover does not postpone the running of the limitations period for their first cause of action. B. Equitable Relief Plaintiffs also allege that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. Equitable estoppel involves a circumstance in which a defendant is estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense. Pursuant to this doctrine, "`a defendant cannot avail [her or] himself of the bar of the statute of limitations, if it appears that he [or she] has done anything that would tend to lull the plaintiff into inaction, and thereby permit the limitation prescribed by the statute to run against him [or her]."' Vidinha v. Miyaki, 145 P.3d 879, 885 (Haw. App. 2006) (quoting Mauian Hotel, Inc. v. Maui Pineapple Co., 481 P.2d 310, 315 (Haw. 1971). "One invoking equitable estoppel must show that he or she has detrimentally relied on 17