Question

What is the public policy reason (s) behind having a Satute of Limitation of Medical Malpractice Cases? Are these arguements for having a statute of limitation (SOL) convincing from the provider's prespective?

Answer 1

A statute of limitation is a law which imposes a time limit for filing certain types of lawsuits. Generally, they require that lawsuits be filed within a few years after the alleged injury occurred. Otherwise, you will lose your right to a legal remedy. This usually occurs after the defendant files a motion to dismiss. Medical malpractice lawsuits are no exception, and they have their own statutes of limitations; however, there are a few wrinkles in this area of the law.

If the cause of the patient’s injury is discovered after the statute of limitations has run, under the traditional rules, the patient will be unable to pursue a medical malpractice claim. As a result, many patients were treated unfairly in that they were denied any type of recovery after not having discovered their injury until several years after the negligent conduct occurred.

Because of this injustice, some states have adopted a "discovery rule" for medical malpractice statutes of limitations. Under this rule, the statute of limitations period does not begin to run until the injury is discovered, or the patient (or his or her physician) reasonably should have discovered it.

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:^[6]

• A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
• By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
• Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

From the view point of the provider, the Statue Of Limitations are not at all a convincing one. It might cause unnecessary Time duration for someone to approach law and legislation to file complaints. Sometimes there may be cheating occur in this.