¶1with whom GLASSMAN and DANA, JJ., join, concurring.
¶2I agree to affirm the decision of the Superior Court. I write separately because I do not agree with the analysis of Part I of the Court’s opinion. Instead, I would adopt the reasoning of the trial court.
¶3Rather than accept the Choroszys’ position that they “reasonably could not have known” of the negligence of Tso, the trial court analyzed the difference between Choroszy’s situation and that of the foreign object surgical malpractice patient. I agree with that court’s conclusion, that it would not be unreasonable to expect Choroszy to seek a second opinion or to return to Tso because his hearing had not improved. In such circumstances, the application of the three-year statute of limitations cannot be said to violate Article I, section 19 of the Maine Constitution.