Published by Arfaa Law Group
When does a patient truly know they’ve been harmed, and who’s responsible for it? That question, often blurred by time, symptoms, and shifting medical advice, is at the heart of many medical malpractice cases. In a recent medical malpractice decision, the court confronted the delicate intersection of legal deadlines and patient awareness. A jury had ruled that the plaintiff’s case was too late, but the appellate court found that the jury never should have been cut out of the conversation. This case reaffirms that in complex malpractice claims, timing isn’t just everything, it’s something the jury must decide. If you suffered harm due to inadequate medical care, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney about your potential claims as soon as possible.
Factual Background and Procedural History
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a urethral dilation procedure performed by the defendant urologist at the defendant clinic. Allegedly, after the procedure, the plaintiff began to experience a cascade of serious medical issues, including pain, fatigue, and neurological symptoms. It is alleged that these conditions progressively worsened over time, and the plaintiff continued to seek medical opinions to understand their cause.
It is reported that the plaintiff did not file her complaint until more than three years after the initial procedure. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that the claim was time-barred under D.C. Code § 12-301(8), which imposes a three-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions.
The trial court agreed, holding that the plaintiff either knew or should have known of her injury and its cause earlier, and dismissed the case. It also denied the plaintiff’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpractice Cases
On appeal, the court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the question of when the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, her injury and its cause is a fact issue for the jury, particularly where evidence could support conflicting inferences.
The court found that the trial judge erred in removing this question from the jury by granting judgment as a matter of law. The opinion emphasized that under the discovery rule, the statute begins to run only when the plaintiff has sufficient knowledge of both the injury and its causal connection to the defendant’s actions. Here, the record showed a genuine dispute as to when that occurred.
The court also found that the trial court’s failure to adequately address a misstatement of law by defense counsel during closing argument was prejudicial. Defense counsel misstated the discovery rule by suggesting that a plaintiff need only be on “inquiry notice” to trigger the limitations period, omitting the essential requirement that the plaintiff understand the likely cause of her injury. The court ruled that the judge’s curative instruction was insufficient, particularly given the centrality of the limitations issue to the case.
Consult a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Understanding when the statute of limitations begins to run in a medical malpractice case is a complex and fact-intensive inquiry. Patients who experience delayed or unclear symptoms may not immediately know they have been harmed, and they deserve the opportunity to have a jury consider that question. At Arfaa Law Group, our experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys are committed to ensuring patients’ rights are preserved and their voices are heard. If you have concerns about a possible misdiagnosis or delayed harm, contact us at (410) 889-1850 or fill out our online form to schedule a free consultation.