I will modify my previous post to state that the clock should start ticking when the "malpractice" (including the damage) came to the awareness of the plaintiff. The story doesn't state when that happened.

Plaintiffs should have a good amount of time to sue. Why should the person(s) who commite wrongful death benefit from the passage of time?

What is puzzling about this story is that it doesn't say when the plaintiff became aware of the tort -wrongful death, or, cause of (legal) action. That's when the clock is supposed to start ticking. If it wasn't known until later that a sponge was left in the dead man, then the clock should have started ticking when that was discovered and the plaintiff reasonably became aware of the tort.

Further, the period of time prior to the death shouldn't count. In order for that period of time to count, the plaintiff should have been able to sue during it. How could the plaintiff sue for wrongful death prior to the death?

There's something very wrong with this decision.

And, yes indeed, go after the attorneys.

From other wire stories, the attorney is Jason Studinski.
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/53901-wi-j...
.
The Wisconsin State Bar has put out an analysis of the case.
http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Se...

Ruling is perfectly fair and based on long established WI statutes.

What it doesn't say but some have mentioned is these folks likely have recourse against their attorney for potential malfesance or malpractice for allowing the statute to run.

Should have mentioned who "represented" them in this action for a little public awareness.

I am assuming that this was an otherwise healthy man. The grief process takes awhile in any death. Even longer with a sudden/unexpected death. The lawsuit was brought by his estate, which means many times that it can't happen until after insurance claims are settled (both medical for the different doctors, the tests, and the hospital as well as life insurance). Three years seems like a long time until you go through it! This is a TOTALLY unfair decision!

Oh, wow. This almost certainly means a malpractice suit against her attorney. The legislative research bureau says: "In Wisconsin, medical malpractice actions generally must be filed within three years of the date of the injury or one year from the date the injury was discovered or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered." That means there were two clocks running, one of which expired Aug. 11, 2004, so if the attorney was retained before that date he had already missed one deadline. There are sometimes reasons to run out the clock on these things, but it seems there was no good one here.

I would think that 3 years is plenty of time to decide to sue.

Without knowing the reason(s) she delayed filing the lawsuit it's difficult to comment. They may be very legitimate in which case the ruling would seem unfair. However it doesn't seem like it would take three years to realize the cause of his death was an infection created by the failure to remove a sponge. The law clearly defines the time restraints and her attorney would have been well aware of them. I guess the real issue is when should the clock start ticking.

Wow. No justice here.