Opinion ID: 1158244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: history of the medical malpractice statute

Text: Even if this were not a preexisting claims case, the majority would still be mistaken, as the language and legislative history of the statute demonstrate. The statute governing time limits on actions for medical malpractice has gone through a number of changes over the years. In its first incarnation, the statute was a model of simplicity. It embodied a three-year statute of limitation modified by a one-year discovery rule: Any civil action ... based upon alleged [medical] professional negligence shall be commenced within (1) three years from the date of the alleged wrongful act, or (2) one year from the time that plaintiff discovers the injury or condition was caused by the wrongful act, whichever period of time expires last. Laws of 1971, ch. 80, § 1, pp. 194-95 (codified as RCW 4.16.350). The 1976 amendment added three refinements. It added a knew or should have known element to the discovery rule; it added a statute of repose which barred actions beyond eight years regardless of when they accrued; and it exempted persons under a disability from the limitations in this section, which presumably included the three-year statute of limitation, the one-year discovery rule, and the eight-year statute of repose. As of 1976, then, actions had to be: commenced within three years of the act or omission alleged to have caused the injury or condition, or one year of the time the patient or his representative discovered or reasonably should have discovered that the injury or condition was caused by said act or omission, whichever period expires later, except that in no event shall an action be commenced more than eight years after said act or omission. Any action not commenced in accordance with this section shall be barred: PROVIDED, That the limitations in this section shall not apply to persons under a legal disability as defined in RCW 4.16.190. Laws of 1975-76, 2d Ex. Sess., ch. 56, § 1, pp. 214-15 (amending RCW 4.16.350). The Legislature revisited the statute in the 1986 tort reform act. That act amended RCW 4.16.350 once again. The amendment made three changes. First, it added a tolling provision for fraud or intentional concealment. Second, it deleted the 1976 exception to the eight-year statute of repose for persons under a disability as defined by RCW 4.16.190, which includes minority as a disability. Third, in place of the exception to the eight-year statute of repose, it added the following language: For purposes of this section, notwithstanding RCW 4.16.190, the knowledge of a custodial parent or guardian shall be imputed to a person under the age or [ sic ] eighteen years. Laws of 1986, ch. 305, § 502, p. 1362. The act also required the insurance commissioner to prepare a report for the Legislature on the impact of the 1986 amendments. Laws of 1986, ch. 305, § 909, p. 1367. The commissioner empaneled a Tort Reform Committee, which examined the 1986 amendments and made recommendations. See Report of the Tort Reform Committee to the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Washington on the 1986 Tort Reform Act (January 1987).