Should the statute of limitations on malpractice cases be extended?

[lazaro94]

im doing a research paper for my school and the question i was given was should there be a statute of limitations on malpractice suits, well there already is, so i revised the topic to, is it fair? and i just wanted to hear what some people think on this topic.

[flannagain]

No. Why does it need to be extended? The statute of limitations "usually" starts to run when the harm is or should have been discovered. Such as in cases where maybe the effects could not possibly be discovered until after the act was committed. And then the plaintiff has so many years (depending on the jurisdiction) to file a claim. Why do they need to sit on their thumbs for longer than that?

There's a competing policy interest to protect defendant's from stale lawsuits because they will be less able to defend their case if too much time goes by, and especially if the plaintiff totally would have been able to bring it sooner, but merely chose not to. Witness's memories fade, evidence gets lost, and there are lots of other policy issues at play. The saying goes, "Justice delayed, is justice denied."

[delron72]

No need for it, the statute of limitations on Medmal is different from all others.

There are instances where the SoL does not begin to tick until the malpractice is actually discovered.

Varies from state to state as well