Teen to sue for birth injury despite statute of limitations

The Wisconsin state Supreme Court ruled Friday that a teenager who developed cerebral palsy will be allowed to sue his doctor and hospital for medical malpractice despite the statute of limitations. The developmentally disabled teen, 14-year-old Toby Haferman Jr, developed cerebral palsy because his brain was denied oxygen right before and after birth allegedly due to doctor negligence. His family filed a lawsuit against the negligent doctor and hospital in 2002, but the case was dismissed because the case was filed after the statute of limitations.

After the original case was dismissed, Toby’s family appealed the decision but the appeals court upheld the original ruling. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has now overruled these decisions, stating that the state’s medical malpractice statutes of limitations do not fully address injuries to developmentally disabled children. For the Hafermans, this means that after years of legal wrangling and enduring the damages caused by medical malpractice, the family will finally get their day in court.

This Supreme Court decision focused closely on the gaps between three laws relevant to this cerebral palsy case. The first statute states that, in most cases, a medical malpractice case must be filed within three years of the injury or one year of the discovery of the injury. The second statute says that, when it comes to children, a claim must be brought within three years or by the age of ten, whichever is later. This law, however, does not appear to apply to children with developmental disabilities. The third law says that disabled minors can file a claim within two years of injury, but this limit does not apply to claims against health care providers.

According to the attorneys representing Toby, the family knew about Toby’s cerebral palsy at a young age, but did not know until recently that oxygen deprivation at birth could cause cerebral palsy or that the doctor could be held liable for his negligence.

Justice David Prosser, who disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, says the decision is a legislative mistake. He believes it is unfair to give developmentally disabled children more favorable treatment than is given to the victims of other types of personal injury. He points out that this case has been authorized 11.5 years after the statute of limitations would normally have expired.

This Supreme Court decision regarding the rights of a teen with cerebral palsy to file a medical malpractice claim could have broader legal implications. In July 2005, the state of Wisconsin threw out limits placed on the damages one could recover for pain and suffering through a medical malpractice claim. Prosser points out that this cerebral palsy medical malpractice case will not be subject to caps on non-economic caps, as the legislature continues to debate statutes on caps in medical malpractice cases.

While some critics worry that the medical malpractice legal system is in collapse, the facts are not there to support this argument. In 2004, before the removal of non-economic caps, there were 240 medical malpractice claims filed in Wisconsin. In 2005, after the caps were removed, there were 223 medical malpractice claims filed. An official with the Wisconsin Hospitals Association says the Supreme Court’s decision highlights the need for a valid set of caps and a definitive law about statutes of limitation.

Despite the legal battle fueled by this case, this ruling is good news for a young boy who suffered a serious and life long injury—cerebral palsy—at the hands of a negligent medical professional.