Maryland Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations

If you believe you have been the victim of medical malpractice, keeping your eye on the calendar is important because there are specific timelines for how long you may have to file a lawsuit in court. This is called a statute of limitations.

Maryland Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations

The general statute of limitations for medical malpractice lawsuits is three years in Maryland. This general statute of limitations is codified at §5-109 of Md. Code, Cts.& Jud. Proc. Article. This applies to doctors, nurses, hospitals, and any other healthcare provider.

Section 5-109 also imposes an outside five-year limit. A medical malpractice claim must be filed within the earlier of five years from the time the injury was committed or three years from the date the injury was discovered.

The Discovery Rule Can Extend the Statute of Limitations (a little)

The discovery rule is an exception to the standard statute of limitations. This rule comes into play when an injury isn’t immediately evident. The classic example everyone uses to describe the malpractice discovery rule is when a surgeon leaves a surgical instrument inside a patient, but the patient only becomes aware of it several years later. In this type of case, the discovery rule allows for the three-year countdown to start from the moment of discovery rather than the date of the operation.

The discovery rule in Maryland is not open-ended. While it does grant victims a three-year window from the discovery of the injury, this claim must still be made within the overarching limit of five years from the time the injury was committed.

What does this all mean? If an injury is not detected immediately, the victim has three years from the date on which the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered to file suit. But the suit must be filed within five years, absent unusual circumstances.

You do not have to know that you have a medical malpractice claim before the three-year period can begin. Maryland’s discovery rule looks at when you knew or reasonably should have known enough to investigate the injury and its cause.

One circumstance our lawyers frequently handle is medical malpractice claims for minors. For a child’s own claim, the clock starts ticking when the child reaches 18, regardless of their age at the time of the injury.

Defining When an Injury Occurs

So then, what is an “injury”? This can be confusing because the statutory language does not define what an injury is. Still, an injury is what triggers the clock to start ticking, so it is vital to figure out whether you have suffered an injury and when.

Legally Cognizable Harm

Maryland courts have tried to define what it means. In Edmonds v. Cytology Services of Maryland Inc., the court stated that to determine if an injury has been committed, the question is whether the patient has suffered harm that is “legally cognizable.” A “legally cognizable” harm exists if there are damages.

Therefore, if you are trying to look at when an injury happened to figure out the statute of limitations, you must ask yourself if you have suffered harm with compensable damages. Moreover, it is important to remember that the clock starts ticking from when the injury occurred, even if it is not discovered until later. The five-year period begins to run when injury (or “damages”) first arises, not when all damages resulting from the physician’s negligence have occurred.

Examples of When an Injury Occurs

Here is a list of examples of what an “injury” could look like as a result of a negligent misdiagnosis, as stated by the Edmonds court:

1. They experience pain or other manifestations of an injury;
2. the disease advances beyond the point where it was at the time of the misdiagnosis and to a point where
   1. it can no longer effectively be treated,
   2. it cannot be treated as well or as completely as it could have been at the time of the misdiagnosis, or
   3. the treatment would entail expense or detrimental side effects that would not likely have occurred had treatment commenced at the earlier time; or
3. the patient dies.

Even if the injury is not discovered until later, the statute of limitations is triggered when the injury or damage first arose. This is important in cases of misdiagnosis of a disease like cancer.

Let’s look at a Maryland appellate opinion that underscores how unfair the malpractice statute of limitations can be with this limitation on the length of the discovery rule. In Linton v. Evans, a patient brought a lawsuit against her medical practitioners after they failed to diagnose breast cancer despite her repeated concerns about finding lumps on her chest. Two years later, the patient was diagnosed with cancer but learned a month later that her breast cancer was at stage 3C.

For purposes of the statute of limitations, the court held that the injury or damage first arose when she was diagnosed with cancer because there was “some harm.” Her diagnosis in and of itself was evidence of compensable harm. However, her later-acquired knowledge of her cancer stage was just confirmation of her disease and not an injury.

In this patient’s case, the earlier date – the date of her cancer diagnosis – was the date that controlled the statute of limitations. What does this mean? A potentially worthy plaintiff does not get past the courtroom door.

Don’t let this happen to you. Call a lawyer and figure out when you have to file your claim. Immediately.

• The statute of limitations in wrongful death cases

Take Home Message: Assume the Limitations Period is Three Years

Many Maryland statute of limitations cases go down just like this case. Please listen to this: When in doubt, assume that you could have discovered your injury and the cause of it the day that it happened, because this is how it plays out in 99% of the medical malpractice cases we see.

So many victims come to us thinking their limitations period is longer than three years because they did not “know” it was malpractice. This is not just a death trap that victims themselves have fallen into: many medical malpractice lawyers assume the discovery rule will save them, but the court sees it very differently.

The Language of the Malpractice Statute of Limitations

The full text of Maryland’s Statute of Limitations in medical malpractice cases can be found in section 5-109 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland. A part of the statute currently states that for children, the statute of limitations starts running when the child turns 11 or, in some cases, 16. However, Maryland’s Court of Appeals, now called the Supreme Court of Maryland, clarified that part of the statute in Piselli v. 75th Street Medical, 808 A.2d 508, 371 Md. 188 (2002), which held that the clock starts ticking when the child turns 18 years old.

1. An action for damages for an injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services by a health care provider, as defined in § 3-2A-01 of this article, shall be filed within the earlier of:
   1. Five years of the time the injury was committed; or
   2. Three years of the date the injury was discovered.
2. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, if the claimant was under the age of 11 years at the time the injury was committed, the time limitations prescribed in subsection (a) of this section shall commence when the claimant reaches the age of 11 years.
   1. The provisions of subsection (b) of this section may not be applied to an action for damages for an injury:
      1. To the reproductive system of the claimant; or
      2. Caused by a foreign object negligently left in the claimant’s body.
   2. In an action for damages for an injury described in this subsection, if the claimant was under the age of 16 years at the time the injury was committed, the time limitations prescribed in subsection (a) of this section shall commence when the claimant reaches the age of 16 years.
3. For the purposes of this section, the filing of a claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office in accordance with § 3-2A-04 of this article shall be deemed the filing of an action.
4. The provisions of § 5-201 of this title that relate to a cause of action of a minor may not be construed as limiting the application of subsection (b) or (c) of this section.
5. Nothing contained in this section may be construed as limiting the application of the provisions of:
   1. § 5-201 of this title that relate to a cause of action of a mental incompetent; or
   2. § 5-203 of this title.

Does Filing a Claim With HCADRO Protect the Statute of Limitations?

Yes. Section 5-109 specifically provides that filing a claim with the Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office in accordance with § 3-2A-04 is deemed the filing of an action for purposes of the medical malpractice statute of limitations.

This is a big deal because Maryland medical malpractice claims generally have to be filed in HCADRO before the plaintiff files the malpractice lawsuit in court. Filing the HCADRO claim does not eliminate the other deadlines and requirements that apply to a Maryland malpractice case.

Can Fraudulent Concealment Extend the Statute of Limitations?

It can. Section 5-109 specifically preserves the application of § 5-203, Maryland’s fraudulent concealment statute. If knowledge of a cause of action is kept from a plaintiff by the fraud of an adverse party, § 5-203 provides that the claim is deemed to accrue when the plaintiff discovered, or through ordinary diligence should have discovered, the fraud.

But do not assume fraudulent concealment will rescue a late medical malpractice case. These cases are fact specific, and the safer course is always to assume the shortest plausible deadline applies.

More Maryland Malpractice Statute of Limitations Cases

• Brunenkant v. Suburban Hospital, Inc. (2026) (Fourth Circuit)

In this case, the court reminds us that fraud and conspiracy claims filed in a medical negligence lawsuit are not malpractice claims so the statute of limitations for malpractice claims does not apply to those counts of the complaint.

• Vivar v. Dilts (2026) (Maryland Appellate Court)

This wrongful death lawsuit arose from a child’s tragic death at an urgent care center. The medical malpractice lawsuit was timely filed with HCADRO, but the child’s father did not seek to join the lawsuit before the three-year wrongful death deadline. The court found that the relation back doctrine could not rescue his late claim. The lesson from this case is the three-year deadline for a wrongful death claim is a condition precedent, and missing the deadline extinguishes your claim.

• Charette v. Wexford Health Sources (2023) (federal court)

A civil rights claim under Section 1983 in a malpractice claim is considered a personal injury claim. Accordingly, § 5-101 is the applicable statute of limitations for the Section 1983 claim. Section 5-109(a) governs the medical malpractice claim.

• Pollard v. Grace Medical Center (2022) (federal court)

Same Section 1983 statute of limitations holding. The general three-year limitations period under § 5-101 applies to the Section 1983 claim, while § 5-109 applies to a state law medical malpractice claim.

• Mee v. Peterson (2021) (unreported)

The primary question on appeal is whether the lawsuit was filed beyond the stipulated limitation period. The case discussion revolves around the distinction between the time of injury and the awareness of harm, and how this influences the statute of limitations of a medical malpractice claim. What happened in this case is that a man was unsuccessfully treated for a cough and shortness of breath. He was referred to a pulmonologist. In March 2010, the pulmonologist diagnosed him with several respiratory conditions and other doctors treated him after that. By 2016, after marrying and facing infertility issues, he consulted a fertility specialist. He was diagnosed with azoospermia attributed to Cytoxan toxicity, a medication he had been taking for his respiratory ailments. In 2018, the individual and his wife filed a lawsuit against the pulmonologist and the subsequent treating doctors, alleging medical malpractice related to the prescription of Cytoxan. The court found that the doctor who treated him in 2010 should be dismissed because it was beyond the five-year window.

• Zander v. United States (2011) (federal court)

The Government contends that the plaintiff’s lawsuit is invalid under Maryland’s five-year limitations period since she did not file it within five years of her injury. However, this case is distinct from the Anderson case we talk about below. In Anderson, decided after Zander, Maryland’s highest court held that § 5-109(a)(1) is a statute of limitations, not a statute of repose. In this case, the issue of preemption between the FTCA and Maryland’s five-year period is central. The FTCA permits a claimant to treat an administrative claim as denied and file suit if the relevant agency does not make a final disposition within six months. The plaintiff’s case here falls into this “deemed denied” category, creating a conflict with Maryland’s statute. Despite the seeming conflict with Maryland’s five-year period, the court finds that the FTCA’s statute of limitations takes precedence. Therefore, the plaintiff’s filing was deemed timely.

• Anderson v. United States (2012)

In Maryland, whether § 5-109(a)(1) is termed a “statute of limitations” or a “statute of repose” is inconsequential to most plaintiffs. But this distinction makes a difference for plaintiffs filing a medical malpractice lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA has its own limitations period, but a substantive state statute of repose can control in ways a procedural state statute of limitations does not. Importantly, while a state statute of limitations is procedural, a statute of repose is substantive and can take precedence over the FTCA’s timeline. The court found that based on its language and legislative history, § 5-109(a)(1) is a statute of limitations.

Older § 5-109 Appellate Opinions

• Swam v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center (2007)
• Jacobs v. Flynn (2000)
• Young v. Medlantic Lab (1999)
• Glenn v. Morelos (1989)
• Russo v. Ascher (1988)
• Rivera v. Edmonds (1997)
• Hill v. Fitzgerald (1985)
• Group Health Ass’n v. Blumenthal (1983)

More Information for Medical Malpractice Victims

For individuals who are victims of medical malpractice in Maryland, visit our main malpractice page. Another good place for information is our frequently asked medical negligence questions.

This section provides details on the nuances of healthcare negligence claims. We also explain our seven steps to bringing a malpractice case from the moment you hire us and provide information on the potential value of your medical malpractice claim.

Types of Claims Our Malpractice Lawyers Handle in Maryland

Our lawyers pursue claims in the Baltimore-Washington area for:

• Birth injuries include cerebral palsy, brachial plexus palsy, Erb’s palsy, shoulder dystocia, and other pregnancy-related injuries.
• Hospital malpractice in the emergency room or after admission, surgical errors such as cutting or severing organs, nerves, ducts (often during gallbladder surgery), vessels or bowels, anesthesia mistakes, and infections.
• Medication or drug errors and mistakes, such as drug overdoses, unrecognized drug allergies, or improper use or combination of drugs.
• Failure to diagnose the patient’s condition, such as cancer (breast, skin) and heart conditions,
• Nursing home abuse and nursing home/hospital slip and fall cases.

Free Maryland Malpractice Claim Consultation

If you live in the Baltimore-Washington area and believe you have been a victim of a medical error, call 800-553-8082 or get a free online malpractice consultation.