“Medical Malpractice” and When Time Begins to Run
Published .
The general concept
Medical-malpractice deadlines can be difficult because the negligent act, the resulting injury, and the patient’s discovery of that injury may occur at different times. A patient may experience a complication without knowing its cause; a delayed diagnosis may cause harm before the patient understands that anything is wrong. The date of a procedure or appointment is not always the date the legal clock starts.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland law generally requires a health-care malpractice action to be filed by the earlier of five years from when the injury was committed or three years from when the injury was discovered. For the five-year period, Maryland cases describe the injury as occurring when the allegedly negligent act is first coupled with harm; that can be later than the act itself. The discovery period can turn on when the patient or, in some cases, a responsible family member knew or reasonably should have known of the injury. Warning signs that may matter include a new or worsening condition, an unexpected complication, a later provider identifying a prior error, an abnormal result that was not addressed, or a need for corrective treatment. None automatically starts the clock; the full medical history and explanations matter. A patient generally need not know the precise legal theory or have an expert opinion before the period may run. Maryland has special timing provisions for some children, and filing with HCADRO in accordance with the statute is deemed the filing of an action. Wrongful-death claims and other exceptions require separate analysis. Because reasonable people can disagree about the trigger date, uncertainty is a reason to obtain prompt legal review, not to assume the deadline is safely distant.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 5-109, 3-2A-04.; Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689 (1985).; Edmonds v. Cytology Services of Maryland, Inc., 111 Md. App. 233 (1996), aff’d sub nom. Rivera v. Edmonds, 347 Md. 208 (1997).; Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, 371 Md. 188 (2002).; Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 314 Md. 433 (1988).