Case Study

Was your injury more than 2 years ago?

Staute of limitations challanged if you just found out about the malpractice.

A great case of injury to a child was discovered 10 years after it happened when an expert REVIEWED the case and disagreed with the previous expert 10 years earlier. The courts was petitioned to allow a medical malpractice case to be filed since the father of the child found out about the negligence AFTER the second opinion 10 years later. The court held that the plaintiff’s father did not become aware of the physical cause of the plaintiff’s injury until the time he received the second expert report. The court also held that he ought not reasonably have become aware of the physical cause of her injury before that date. As such, the plaintiff had satisfied the necessary criteria to be given an extension of time to commence proceedings against the defendants.

The case demonstrates that, in claims that require expert evidence on the physical cause of a plaintiff’s injury and/or whether that injury was due to anyone’s negligence, the receipt of unsupportive expert evidence prior to the expiration of the limitation period will not preclude an extension of time being granted later if fresh evidence is obtained. Despite making an active decision not to commence proceedings, plaintiffs will be able to revisit the issue as medical knowledge advances and different experts become available for consultation.

Insurers of risks of this nature should approach the reserving of notifications with caution, notwithstanding the apparent abandonment of a claim by a plaintiff.

This is EXACTLY why is here for you. Even if a claim was abandon because of one expert review, have your case reevaluated by our experts and let us examine every issue that could re-open your claim and see you well rewarded and compensated for your loss!

Sign in to your account: