An action to recover damages for professional malpractice, or for an injury to the person, or for the death of one caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, including any such action arising from breach of an implied warranty or implied covenant; provided, however, when the action is for damages arising out of the placement and inadvertent, accidental or unintentional leaving of any foreign object in the body of any person by reason of the professional malpractice of any hospital, physician or other person or institution practicing any of the healing arts or when the fact of damage has, for the purpose of escaping responsibility therefor, been fraudulently and knowingly concealed from the injured party by an alleged wrongdoer standing at the time of the wrongful act, neglect or breach in a professional or commercial relationship with the injured party, the same shall be deemed to accrue when the injured party knows or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been put on inquiry regarding the condition or matter complained of; but in all other actions, whether arising from professional malpractice or otherwise, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued as of the time of the occurrence, act or omission complained of, and the limitation period shall not be extended by reason of any continuing consequences or damages resulting therefrom or any continuing professional or commercial relationship between the injured party and the alleged wrongdoer, and, provided further, that an action within the foregoing foreign object or fraudulent concealment exceptions must be commenced within one (1) year following the date of accrual as aforesaid or two (2) years following the occurrence, act or omission complained of, whichever is later. The term "professional malpractice" as used herein refers to wrongful acts or omissions in the performance of professional services by any person, firm, association, entity or corporation licensed to perform such services under the law of the state of Idaho.
Masi v. Seale, 106 Idaho 561, 682 P.2d 102 (1984). (Statute of limitations bars an action against a dentist for negligence in extracting a wisdom tooth, when brought more than two years after the extraction, notwithstanding the contention that the limitation period begins at the later date when the dentist removed the stitches).
Holmes v. Iwasa, 104 Idaho 179, 657 P.2d 476 (1983). (Statute bars an action against an optometrist for the failure to detect glaucoma where his last examination of the patient took place more than two years before the suit. The fact that he ordered bifocals for the patient and fitted them at the time less about two years before the suit was irrelevant.)
Reis v. Cox, 104 Idaho 434, 660 P.2d 46 (1983). (Summary judgment for the defendant on the basis of the statute of limitations was improper where an issue existed as to when the plaintiff knew that the foreign body, as shown on the x-ray, was not "an undissolved suture" as she had been advised by the defendant physician. It was in fact a Penrose drain, which he had left in her abdomen during a hysterectomy.)
Stoner v. Carr, 97 Idaho 641, 550 P.2d 259 (1976). (The 1971 amendment reducing the limitation period to one year applies to an action which did not accrue until July 1973, the date when the plaintiff discovered that a needle had been left in his body during surgery in March of 1971. Under these circumstances, applying the 1971 amendment was not a retroactive application of the law.)
Davis v. United States, 642 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1981) , applying federal law. (The negligence of the government in reporting that there was no probable link between the taking of the polio vaccine and the subsequent development of polio by the recipient does not amount to fraudulent concealment so as to toll the statute of limitations.)