What is the significance of the harris vs shah malpratice case?

Answer 1

Shah v. Harris affirmed the precedent set by Van Dusen v. Stotts and upheld in the case of Martin v. Richey. Both cases prior to Shah v. Harris dealt with the the court finding that the 2 year statute of limitations, as it applied to malpractice, should be interpreted as follows: the term of two years begins at the time the party becomes aware of the malpractice or injury resulting; or that party should have been reasonably diligent in determining malpractice or injury had occured. The two earlier cases covered long-term illnesses with late onset of symptoms and the court found that without such, there is no other way the patient would have known in order to file suit within the two year period. Similarly in Shah, the Harris' could not have known about the malpractice until the new diagnosis.