THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0042, Christopher Willott v. State of New Hampshire, Department of Health and Human Services, Division for Children, Youth and Families, the court on November 12, 2020, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).

This interlocutory appeal is from a ruling of the Superior Court (Anderson, J.), see Sup. Ct. R. 8, dismissing several survival claims sounding in tort brought on behalf of a deceased minor against the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). The trial court found the claims time- barred under RSA 541-B:14, IV (Supp. 2019), rejecting arguments that they were subject to the minor tolling provision of RSA 508:8 (2010), the limitations period of RSA 556:11 (2019), or the discovery rule of RSA 508:4, I (2010). The trial court observed that the plaintiff had “failed to cite any supreme court opinions actually applying any tolling provision to RSA 541-B:14 in the thirty- plus years since” we issued Opinion of the Justices, 126 N.H. 554 (1985).

In Petition of N.H. Div. for Children, Youth & Families, 173 N.H. ___ (decided September 30, 2020) (DCYF), however, we recently held that the discovery rule of RSA 508:4, I, applies to claims brought under RSA 541-B:14, IV. We reasoned in part that RSA 508:1 (2010) bars application of the provisions of RSA chapter 508 only when the claim at issue is subject to a limitations provision that conflicts with RSA chapter 508, and that RSA 541- B:14, IV and RSA 508:4, I, which contain identical time limitations, are not in conflict. DCYF, 173 N.H. at ___ (slip op. at 4-5). We further reasoned that the legislature’s failure to state expressly that the discovery rule does not apply to RSA 541-B:14, IV reflected its understanding that, following Opinion of the Justices, the discovery rule does apply to claims brought under RSA 541-B:14, IV. Id. at ___ (slip op. at 5-6). Because the trial court did not have the benefit of DCYF when it granted DCYF’s motion to dismiss, we vacate and remand so that it may consider, in the first instance, the impact, if any, of DCYF upon its analysis of RSA 541-B:14, IV as it relates to the claims at issue in this case.

Vacated and remanded.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk