New Jersey's medical malpractice statute of limitations, codified under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, requires claims to be filed within two years from the date the cause of action accrues. Unlike many states, New Jersey does not impose a general statute of repose for medical malpractice claims, relying instead on the discovery rule to determine when accrual occurs. The state's Affidavit of Merit statute imposes strict post-filing procedural obligations that can result in dismissal with prejudice for non-compliance.
This article explains New Jersey's timing requirements for medical malpractice actions, including tolling exceptions, birth injury limitations, and recent judicial interpretations affecting how courts apply N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.
Core Rules for Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations in New Jersey
New Jersey's medical malpractice limitations framework is governed by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, which establishes a two-year filing period modified by the judicially-created discovery rule and subject to specific exceptions for birth injuries and wrongful death claims.
Two-Year Filing Requirement
Medical malpractice actions must be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. This limitation period applies uniformly to claims against physicians, hospitals, nurses, and other licensed healthcare professionals. The two-year period runs from discovery-based accrual rather than from the date of the negligent act—a framework established in Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (1973) and addressed in detail below.
Absence of General Statute of Repose
New Jersey does not have a statute of repose specifically applicable to medical malpractice claims. The state's only statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1, applies exclusively to claims arising from defective conditions of improvements to real property. The primary exception involves birth injuries, which are subject to an absolute thirteenth-birthday deadline under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.
Discovery Rule Requirements
Accrual is determined by an objective standard. The relevant inquiry is when a reasonable person would have discovered the facts giving rise to the cause of action, not merely when the plaintiff subjectively became aware of a potential claim. Once a plaintiff possesses information that would lead a reasonable person to suspect wrongdoing, the limitations clock begins regardless of whether the plaintiff subjectively appreciates the full extent of the injury.
When N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 Does Not Apply
The standard two-year medical malpractice limitations period does not apply in several circumstances. Wrongful death claims are governed by N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3, requiring filing within two years of death rather than two years from discovery of malpractice. Public entity defendants trigger the 90-day notice requirement under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8. Additionally, the Affidavit of Merit compliance requirements under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 impose procedural obligations regardless of timely filing.
Tolling Exceptions That Affect Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations in New Jersey
New Jersey recognizes five primary tolling doctrines: minority, mental incapacity, fraudulent concealment, foreign object, and continuous treatment.
1. Minority Tolling
N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 provides tolling for minors under age 18 at the time the cause of action accrues. The statute of limitations is tolled until minors reach age 18, after which they have an additional two years to file. Birth injuries must be filed before the minor's thirteenth birthday, regardless of other tolling provisions, and minority tolling does not extend to wrongful death or survival claims brought on behalf of deceased minors.
2. Mental Incapacity Tolling
N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21 provides tolling for persons with a mental disability that prevents understanding legal rights or commencing legal action. Plaintiffs must demonstrate the existence of a mental disability that prevented understanding of legal rights, with tolling continuing until incapacity is resolved. The burden rests on the plaintiff to establish both the existence and severity of the mental condition through competent medical evidence.
3. Fraudulent Concealment
New Jersey recognizes fraudulent concealment as a separate and independent tort. Fraudulent concealment can toll the statute of limitations when a healthcare provider intentionally conceals evidence of malpractice. The Model Jury Charge requires proof of a legal obligation to disclose, materiality of the concealed information, plaintiff's inability to obtain evidence elsewhere, intentional withholding with the purpose to disrupt litigation, and resulting damage.
4. Foreign Object Exception
New Jersey recognizes this exception when a foreign object is left inside a patient's body. The object must be something that would not normally be inside the body; medical fixation devices and intentionally implanted devices are excluded. Courts distinguish between truly foreign objects and therapeutic devices intentionally placed during treatment.
5. Continuous Treatment Doctrine
This doctrine requires an ongoing physician-patient relationship for treatment of the same condition by the same physician. The statute begins running from the last date of treatment for that original condition. The doctrine does not apply when the physician-patient relationship terminates, when treatment shifts to an unrelated condition, or when the patient seeks care from a different provider.
How New Jersey Courts Interpret Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Rules
Recent appellate decisions establish binding precedent on discovery rule application, tolling limitations, and due diligence requirements.
Monk v. Kennedy University Hospital — Minority Tolling in Wrongful Death Claims
The Appellate Division in Monk v. Kennedy (2022) held that the minority tolling provision under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(a) does not apply to wrongful death claims brought on behalf of deceased minors or their estates. Wrongful death actions under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3 require claims be commenced within two years from the date of the minor's death.
The case involved the estates of pediatric patients attempting to invoke minority tolling to extend filing deadlines beyond the standard wrongful death period. The court reasoned that the Wrongful Death Act creates its own limitations framework that supersedes general minority tolling provisions. Because wrongful death claims belong to statutory beneficiaries rather than the deceased patient, the decedent's minority status becomes irrelevant to accrual.
Yanez v. Stirling — Discovery Rule and Due Diligence Requirements
The Appellate Division in Yanez v. Stirling (2022) affirmed summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice wrongful death claim as time-barred. The court held that neither the discovery rule nor the fictitious defendant rule under R. 4:26-4 applied because plaintiffs knew both the injury and the surgeon's identity but failed to act in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs had argued that incomplete medical records justified their delay in filing. However, the court found that the surgeon's identity was known to the plaintiffs throughout, and they failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing their claim within the limitations period. This ruling reinforces that the discovery rule protects plaintiffs who lack information despite reasonable efforts, not those who possess sufficient facts to commence investigation but choose to wait for additional confirmation before filing.
Galayda v. Rosario — Discovery Rule Application
The Appellate Division in Galayda v. Rosario (2025) affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that the discovery rule applied to toll the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovered both the nature of her injury and its negligent cause. The case presented genuine factual disputes about when the plaintiff knew or should have known of her injury's connection to the defendant's treatment. This confirms that the discovery rule creates a fact-intensive inquiry that often survives dispositive motions when plaintiffs can demonstrate legitimate questions about discovery timing.
Recent Updates to Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations Laws in New Jersey
N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2's medical malpractice provisions were not amended between 2022 and 2025. While the statute was amended through Assembly Bills A163 and A427 to address sexual assault and child sexual abuse limitations, these amendments explicitly preserved the existing two-year limitation period for medical malpractice actions.
The most significant recent development occurred through judicial interpretation. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Wiggins (2025) refined Affidavit of Merit requirements, holding that when a defendant physician is board-certified in multiple specialties, an affidavit from an expert qualified in any one of those specialties suffices. Non-compliance with the Affidavit of Merit statute results in dismissal with prejudice under Buck v. Henry, 203 N.J. 432 (2011).
What This Means for Medical Malpractice Filing Deadlines in New Jersey
New Jersey's medical malpractice framework imposes a two-year filing deadline from discovery-based accrual, with strict enforcement of procedural requirements that can extinguish otherwise timely claims. The absence of a general statute of repose provides extended protection for plaintiffs with latent injuries, though birth injury claims face an absolute thirteenth-birthday deadline regardless of discovery timing.
Compliance depends on accurate identification of treatment timelines, injury discovery points, and supporting medical records. Legal AI tools support this work by organizing records, building defensible chronologies, and helping firms track statutory deadlines tied to case facts.
Explore Tavrn's legal technology solutions.
.webp)
.webp)
