South Dakota court rules against patient in time-sensitive medical lawsuit case.
A legal case brought against a South Dakota health system has ended after the state’s highest court dismissed the patient’s appeal, stating she missed the deadline to file by one day. The woman, whose name was not released, had undergone surgery at a South Dakota hospital in December 2021 after complications following childbirth. Doctors performed a hysterectomy, which permanently removed her uterus. She later claimed she never gave permission for that operation and only agreed to an exploratory procedure. Two years later, she filed a lawsuit, alleging that her rights were violated. But the case did not make it far. The hospital’s legal team pointed out that state law gives people two years to take legal action against medical providers. The woman filed her complaint on December 15, 2023—two years and one day after her surgery, which took place on December 14, 2021. Because of that one-day delay, her case was thrown out. A lower court sided with the hospital, and when the woman appealed, the state Supreme Court backed that decision.
In her argument, she said the calendar should have included the leap year, giving her an extra day to file, which would have allowed her to avoid the one-day delay. She also noted that parts of her care continued beyond the date of the surgery itself. She was not discharged from the hospital until December 18, and she believed that detail should have factored into the court’s decision. However, the judges disagreed. In a unanimous ruling, the court explained that the legal clock starts ticking the day the alleged wrongdoing takes place—not the day a patient leaves the hospital. They also turned to widely accepted legal definitions of what counts as a calendar year.
Even though the legal issue hinged on the one-day delay, the woman’s larger concerns were not addressed by the ruling. She argued that she made her wishes clear at the time of treatment and only consented to a less invasive procedure. Whether that claim was true or not did not come into play, since the case was decided based on the statute of limitations alone.
In medical malpractice cases, timelines often play a bigger role than the facts of the case itself. State laws vary, but many set firm deadlines for when a person can take a provider to court. Missing that deadline, even by a short amount of time, often means the case never moves forward. Judges are usually strict about these limits, even in situations that involve ongoing care or confusion over consent.
The woman’s experience also brings attention to how consent is handled during emergency situations, especially after childbirth. When complications arise and fast decisions are needed, medical teams often act quickly to save lives or prevent further harm. In such cases, patients may later feel confused or angry about what was done. Disagreements over consent can lead to lawsuits, but unless those suits are filed on time, they may never be heard.
Hospitals and legal teams often focus on defending themselves with technical points, like timing or definitions. That strategy works because the law favors clear rules. But that can leave patients feeling ignored or powerless, especially when they believe they were harmed.
In this case, the court’s decision does not prove whether the woman was right or wrong about the surgery. It only means she waited too long to make her claim in court. For others in similar situations, the ruling is a reminder of how strict the legal system can be when it comes to deadlines. A single day can mean the difference between having a case heard and being turned away without any review of what happened.
Sources:
SD Supreme Court rules against patient suing Avera over hysterectomy
Leap year argument falls short with South Dakota Supreme Court over hysterectomy suit
Join the conversation!