Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60D (2026)

Claim by minor against provider of health care; limitations

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 60D. Notwithstanding the provisions of section seven of chapter two hundred and sixty, any claim by a minor against a health care provider stemming from professional services or health care rendered, whether in contract or tort, based on an alleged act, omission or neglect shall be commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrues, except that a minor under the full age of six years shall have until his ninth birthday in which the action may be commenced, but in no event shall any such action be commenced more than seven years after occurrence of the act or omission which is the alleged cause of the injury upon which such action is based except where the action is based upon the leaving of a foreign object in the body.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Parr v. Rosenthal, 57 N.E.3d 947 (Mass. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Parr v. Rosenthal, 57 N.E.3d 947 (Mass. 2016). · cites it 21× “Because, under G. L. c. 231, § 60D, a medical malpractice action brought on behalf of a minor who is at least six years old must "be commenced within three years from the date the cause of action accrues," the defendant argued that he was entitled to judgment because the action…”

Chace v. Curran, 881 N.E.2d 792 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “See G. L. c. 231, § 60D, and G. L. c. 260, § 4.”

Harlfinger v. Martin, 435 Mass. 38 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 15× “We find that G. L. c. 231, § 60D, does not violate due process or equal protection guarantees, and that the plaintiffs’ continuing duty theory is unavailing on the facts of this case.”

Nett v. Bellucci, 437 Mass. 630 (Mass. 2002). · cites it 5× “5 See G. L. c. 231, § 60D; G. L. c. 260, § 4. Because he had performed and inteipreted the ultrasound on March 26, 1992, Dr.”

McGuinness v. Cotter, 591 N.E.2d 659 (Mass. 1992). · cites it 5× “See G. L. c. 231, § 60D, as amended by St. 1986, c.”

Harlow v. Child.'s Hosp., 432 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60D. She did not file such a suit.”

Nett ex rel. Nett v. Bellucci, 269 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 60D; 3 Mass. Gen.”

Irwin v. Town of Ware, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 2× “260, § 7, operates to toll the period of limitations for claims brought on behalf of minors entitled to recovery under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. See G.L.c. 260, § 19.”

Plummer v. Gillieson, 692 N.E.2d 528 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 6× “The defendants filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by the repose provision of G. L. c. 231, § 60D. 3 The plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing that because she was under two years of age when her injuries occurred, she had, under G.”

Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 775 N.E.2d 725 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim in the trial court on the ground that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations governing claims by a minor against a health care provider under the provisions of G. L. c. 231, § 60D, as then in effect. St.”

Rudenauer v. Zafiropoulos, 445 Mass. 353 (Mass. 2005). · cites it 2× “We previously reserved consideration of continuing treatment exceptions in a case involving an identically worded provision in G. L. c. 231, § 60D, that imposes a seven-year statute of repose for malpractice actions brought on behalf of minors.”

Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223 (Mass. 2003). “” The defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the default order was denied. A motion for summary judgment thereafter filed by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims were time barred as a matter of law under the statute of repose as then in effect, G.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.