Medical malpractice claims are governed by strict filing deadlines that vary by state and determine whether a case may proceed at all. These deadlines are controlled by statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, and discovery rules, which can apply differently depending on when an injury occurs and when it is discovered.
Across jurisdictions, filing windows range from months to several years, and recent legislative changes have increased variation. Alongside filing deadlines, medical malpractice damage caps also change by state and shape overall claim exposure.
This article provides a current, state-by-state overview of medical malpractice statutes of limitations, discovery rule applications, statutes of repose, and recent legislative and judicial developments affecting filing deadlines.
Understanding Medical Malpractice Filing Deadlines
Medical malpractice filing deadlines are governed by multiple timing rules that may apply independently or concurrently. The following sections explain how statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, and discovery rules function and how courts apply them in practice.
Statute of Limitations vs. Statute of Repose
The statute of limitations establishes the maximum time after the claim accrues within which legal proceedings may be initiated, typically 1 to 4 years from the date of injury discovery. The statute of repose provides an absolute bar to suit after a fixed period from the negligent act, typically 3 to 10 years, regardless of discovery timing.
Limitations periods can be extended through discovery rules and tolling doctrines. Repose periods generally cannot be tolled and may bar claims before patients discover injuries.
Discovery Rule Applications
Discovery rules delay limitations until the injured party discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, both injury and its negligent cause. The standard is objective—what a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position should have known through reasonable diligence.
Most states have adopted discovery rules for medical malpractice claims. South Dakota explicitly rejects discovery rules. New Hampshire limits discovery rules to foreign object cases only. California implements limited discovery rules allowing one year after discovery, but maintains a three-year maximum unless specific tolling applies.
The discovery rule requires two-part discovery knowledge: discovery of the injury and discovery of the causal connection to negligence.
Recent Legislative Changes (2023-2026)
Louisiana extended its medical malpractice statute from 1 to 2 years through Act 423, effective July 1, 2024. Utah enacted HB 288, effective May 7, 2025, extending the statute from 2 to 4 years after discovery and the repose period to 8 years.
Missouri reduced its filing deadline from 5 to 2 years through HB 68, effective August 28, 2025. Minnesota reduced the term from 4 to 2 years via SF 3489, effective August 1, 2025. Nevada established dual-track provisions through AB 404 in 2023, allowing 4 years from injury or 2 years from discovery, whichever is later.
North Carolina created extended filing periods for specific claim categories through HB 805 and HB 606, effective July 2025. Oregon extended repose periods for specific hernia mesh claims through SB 233 in 2025.
Key Court Decisions
The Washington Supreme Court delivered a constitutional ruling in Bennett v. United States (2023), holding that the state's eight-year statute of repose violates the Washington Constitution's privileges and immunities clause when injuries remain undiscoverable within the repose period.
Ohio courts clarified distinctions in recent decisions. In Everhart v. Coshocton County Memorial Hospital (2023), the Ohio Supreme Court held that wrongful death claims based on medical care are subject to the four-year statute of repose. The Ohio Ninth District ruled in Gomez v. Summa Physicians (2024) that a two-year statute of limitations from death governs wrongful death claims.
The California Supreme Court limited MICRA's scope in Gutierrez v. Tostado (2025), holding that MICRA's statute of limitations applies only when claims require proof of violations of the professional medical standard.
National Overview of Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations by State (2026)
This section provides a consolidated view of medical malpractice statutes of limitations, discovery rules, and statutes of repose across all U.S. jurisdictions as of 2026.
State-Specific Statute of Limitations Considerations
Minor tolling provisions differ across jurisdictions.
- North Carolina limits tolling to age 10 with a guardian ad litem appointment starting the limitations clock.
- Florida tolls until age 8 for children under that age at the time of treatment.
- Kansas limits extensions to 8 years, and New York imposes a 10-year limit.
Foreign object exceptions exist in multiple states with varying scopes.
- New York provides one-year discovery periods but excludes chemical compounds, fixation devices, and prosthetic aids.
- Ohio, Virginia, and Idaho provide similar one-year discovery extensions for foreign objects.
Continuous treatment doctrines receive recognition in select jurisdictions.
- New York extends limitations to 2.5 years from the last treatment for the same condition.
- Florida recognizes continuous treatment even when billing methodologies change, focusing on substantive care relationships.
What This Means for Medical Malpractice Filing Deadlines in 2026
Medical malpractice statutes of limitations and statutes of repose create materially different filing environments across U.S. jurisdictions, with deadlines shaped by discovery rules, tolling provisions, and absolute repose cutoffs that can bar claims regardless of when injuries are identified. Recent legislative changes and judicial decisions have further altered these timelines, making state-specific analysis essential when evaluating claim viability.
Accurately assessing filing deadlines depends on complete case documentation, clear treatment timelines, and precise identification of injury discovery dates and treatment sequences. Comprehensive medical record collection and chronology development support this analysis by establishing when claims accrue, when discovery occurs, and how statutory deadlines apply to the underlying facts.
Explore Tavrn’s legal technology solutions.
.webp)
.webp)
