Rivera v. Edmonds

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• suggesting that condition became injury when “additional adverse consequences” occurred
• suggesting that condition became injury when \additional adverse consequences\ occurred
• determining that, because the cancer that plaintiff alleged pathologists should have detected in 1983 “could remain dormant for as long as five years,” there was a window of time between the allegedly negligent failure to diagnose and the resulting harm”
• suggesting that condition became injury when “additional adverse consequences” occurred
• “We have interpreted C.J. § 5-109(a)(2) to provide the plaintiff with three years from the date the wrong was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).