Philadelphia Top Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Pennsylvania medical malpractice lawyer, I was interested to read a case that ultimately allowed an adult woman to go forward with a malpractice claim stemming from when she was nine years old. In Unruh v. Cacchiotti, Lisa Unruh sued her former orthodontist, Dr. Dino Cacchiotti, for negligent dental work that eventually caused her teeth to fall out, requiring her to get implants as a young woman. Unruh was born in 1986 and began orthodontic treatment at the age of nine, in part because she had a severe underbite. She saw Cacchiotti, who started her on braces for her upper teeth in 1995, added lower braces in 1996 and removed both sets in 1999. During this treatment, many of Unruh's permanent teeth suffered a type of damage called root resorption and fell out, causing her to need permanent implants. When the family asked Cacchiotti about this, he told Unruh's stepmother that Unruh probably had a genetic predisposition that the braces exacerbated.

However, several dentists later told Unruh and her family that root resorption is caused by braces being kept on too long. In 2006, when Unruh was 20, the family started looking for an attorney. In the same year, the Washington legislature added an eight-year statute of repose for medical malpractice, and separately eliminated the tolling of the statute of limitations for minors in medical malpractice cases. Unruh filed a notice of intent to sue and Cacchiotti agreed to mediate in early 2007, tolling the statute of limitations by a year. He later backed out of mediation and Unruh continued her suit. In trial court, Cacchiotti successfully moved for summary judgment in the grounds that the statute of limitations had passed. Unruh appealed, and the case was joined by numerous amici, who were Washington state medical, insurance and trial lawyers' groups. The Court of Appeals eventually certified the case to the state Supreme Court for review.

The Supreme Court started by analyzing the three-year statute of limitations. This normally starts running with the last negligent act or omission, the court noted, which in this case could have been when Unruh's braces came off in 1999. However, because she did not turn 18 until 2004, it was tolled under the law of that time. Thus, the three-year statute of limitations began running in 2004 and ended in 2007. Because Cacchiotti agreed to mediation in 2007, the statute was tolled by another year. Thus, her suit filed in late 2007 was timely, the court said. It refused to apply the 2006 nontolling law to Unruh's case retroactively, saying new laws are applied prospectively unless the legislature intends otherwise. Because Unruh was no longer a minor when the nontolling law passed, it did not apply. For the same reason, it also rejected Cacchiotti's argument that the statute of repose should bar her claim; the new statute should begin when the law passed, the court said. Thus, Unruh's suit was timely and should go forward, it ruled.

This is good news for plaintiffs in Washington, because it gives them extra time to make the important decision about whether to file a medical malpractice claim. As a Pennsylvania medical negligence lawyer, I understand how important that decision is. A medical malpractice lawsuit is generally a long time investment, because it is very fact-intensive and likely to be fought hard by the doctor and his or her insurance company (as this case was). It's important for injured families to be sure they want to pursue a case before filing. This is likely even more important when the injured person was very young and, as in this case, does not fully understand her injuries. As a Philadelphia birth injury lawyer, I hope other people who were injured as minors in Washington act quickly to protect their rights to sue.