Notwithstanding section 512 of this title, and except as provided in sections 518 and 551 of this title, actions to recover damages for injuries to the person arising out of any medical
or surgical treatment or operation shall be brought within three years of the date
of the incident or two years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have
been discovered, whichever occurs later, but not later than seven years from the date
of the incident. No statute of limitations shall limit the right to recover damages
for injuries to the person arising out of any medical or surgical treatment or operation
where fraudulent concealment has prevented the patient’s discovery of the negligence.
Where the action is based upon the discovery of a foreign object in the patient’s
body, which is not discovered within the period of limitation under this section,
the action may be commenced within two years of the date of the discovery of the foreign
object. (Added 1977, No. 248 (Adj. Sess.).)
Lillicrap v. Martin, 591 A.2d 41 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 15דThe plaintiff in this medical malpractice case appeals the action of the trial court granting motions for a directed verdict on behalf of all of the defendants.”
Campbell v. Stafford, 2011 VT 11 (Vt. 2011). · cites it 10דThis motion claimed that the medical malpractice three-year statute of limitations in 12 V.S.A. § 521 barred plaintiffs October 16, 2007, complaint because Dr.”
Stewart v. Darrow, 448 A.2d 788 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 9ד1979 The issue both below and on appeal is which of the three limitation statutes controlled the claim: the original 12 V.”
Fercenia v. Guiduli, 2003 VT 50 (Vt. 2003). · cites it 3דA § 521, which provides that “actions to recover damages for injuries to the person arising out of any medical or surgical treatment or operation shall be brought within three years of the date of the incident or two years from the date the injury is or reasonably should have…”
Walters v. Cleveland Reg'l Med. Ctr., 307 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2010). · cites it 2דCode Ann § 29-26-116(a)(4) (2009) (exempting foreign-object claims from repose period); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 521 (2009) (exempting foreign-object claims from repose period); Wash.”
Perkins v. Windsor Hosp. Corp., 455 A.2d 810 (Vt. 1982). · cites it 2ד15(c) governs the relation back of amendments, stating: "Whenever the claim ... asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment *816 relates back to the date of…”
Ware Ex Rel. Ware v. Gifford Mem'l Hosp., 664 F. Supp. 169 (D. Vt. 1987). · cites it 3דThe statute of limitations applicable to this action is 12 V.S.A. § 521, which provides that actions to recover damages for injuries to the person arising out of any medical *170 or surgical treatment or operation shall be brought within three years of the date of the incident…”
Sharond Hill v. Springfield Hosp. & Emergency Servs. of New England, Inc., 2023 VT 23 (Vt. 2023). “The more logical construction of the order is that it gave plaintiff two options once the automatic stay was lifted: file a motion to reopen within thirty days, in which case no additional fees would be incurred, or subsequently refile her complaint as a new action and pay the…”
Univ. of Vermont v. W.R. Grace & Co., 565 A.2d 1354 (Vt. 1989). “§ 518(a) (similar discovery-driven statute of limitations for “radiation injury or injury from other noxious agents medically recognized as having a prolonged latent development”); 12 V.S.A. § 521 (discovery-driven statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions);…”
Inv. Props., Inc. v. Lyttle, 739 A.2d 1222 (Vt. 1999). “, 12 V.S.A. § 521 (two-year limitations for medical malpractice).”
Otis-Wisher v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, Inc., 951 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Vt. 2013). “” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 521 . A late-filed claim may also be considered timely if it “relates back” to the date of the original timely pleading.”
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.