SALT LAKE CITY -- The Utah Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday regarding whether the statute of limitations runs on claims of malpractice when the damage itself is known or when the extent of damage has been determined.

The case pits Dr. Michael Jensen -- who was awarded nearly $3 million in damages on a claim that he was portrayed in a false light only to have the award revoked because the statute of limitations on his case had run out -- against his former attorney, Allen Young. Jensen contends that Young's failure to file the lawsuit in a timely matter, costing him the award, constitutes malpractice.

Jensen's attorney, Philip Fishler, argued that his client didn't know the extent of the damage caused by his attorney's malpractice until the award was revoked.

Fishler argued that the statute of limitations on cases shouldn't begin to run until any underlying, related cases are resolved. He said Young had told Jensen in 1999 that his initial claims of defamation were "blown," but Jensen didn't understand how much that mistake had cost him until the award was revoked in 2005. He said the four-year restraint on filing the malpractice claim should be effective as of 2005, not 1999.

But Justice Jill Parrish said Jensen knew he had lost at least $14,000 in attorney's fees in 1999, which isn't $3 million but also isn't necessarily a small amount.

Richard Burbidge, who argued on behalf of Young, said asking the justices to alter malpractice law so that the statute of limitations won't run on claims until the extent of damage is known could throw litigation into "chaos."

He said a doctor facing a malpractice claim could argue that a patient may recover from the perceived damage, making the claim irrelevant. He said these cases could then go on indefinitely, while waiting for the extent of damage to be determined.

He asked the judges to note that no previous cases have ever resulted in rulings that a statute of limitations on a claim should run only after the extent of damage has been realized. The limitations all go into effect as soon as there is a fact of damage, which Jensen had as soon as his attorney notified him that the defamation claims had been blown.

Jensen's claims of defamation and "false light," a legal term for a portrayal that is not technically false but is misleading, arose out of an investigative report by KTVX reporter Mary Sawyers, who went into Jensen's office under the premise of seeking weight loss aids. Jensen apparently wrote prescriptions for Sawyers without completing a thorough examination. The news station aired segments from the appointment and a subsequent interview with Jensen on three separate occasions, once in 1995 and twice in 1996.

Young filed a complaint on Jensen's behalf, but it was determined in 1999 that the statute of limitations had run out on two of the defamation claims.

A new attorney amended the complaint to include claims of false light, and Jensen was awarded almost $3 million by a jury on the basis of the claim in 2001. The award was later revoked when the Utah Supreme Court ruled the statute of limitations had run out on the claim.

e-mail: emorgan@desnews.com