Riley v. Presnell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtNolan, J.
This case requires us to determine whether and in what manner the so-called “discovery rule” affects the accrual of a malpractice action against a psychotherapist for purposes of the statute of limitations. We hold that an action against a psychotherapist for malpractice does not accrue, and therefore the statute of limitations does not begin to run, until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that he may have suffered injury because of the psychotherapist’s conduct. We further hold that the question when a plaintiff knew or should have known of his cause of action is one of fact…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Pederson v. Time, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- Lopez v. SwyerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Attorney General v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Witherell v. WeimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Hendrickson v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by283 opinions
- Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston UniversityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
- Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Ronald Borden v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, Ronald Borden v. The Paul Revere Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1991
- Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001
278 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.