Should a party’s financial situation be considered when assessing exercise of due diligence?

On August 18, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the plaintiff leave to appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and in holding that the medical malpractice action was time barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations and did not meet the Discovery Rule Exception when the plaintiff did not, and was financially unable to, confirm the defendants’ negligent misdiagnosis until final medical testing confirmed she had Lyme Disease.

This decision could have implications in legal malpractice cases as well. The statute of limitations in a legal malpractice claim begins to run when the attorney breaches his or her duty and is tolled only when the client, despite the exercise of due diligence, cannot discover the injury or its cause. 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018}

^{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}