Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, actions for the following purposes may not be brought after the expiration of the period specified below from the time the right to maintain the action accrues for which a limitation is not otherwise specially prescribed--3 years.
Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 (D.C. Ct. App. 1977). (The date of the institution of the action by the son for the death of his father due to malpractice governs as against the defense of the statute of limitations where the complaint was later amended to show that the son was appointed administrator of the estate. The amended complaint relates back to the date of the original pleading. Hence, the suit is not barred if the original complaint was filed within the limitation period. Note, however, that the court asserts that there is a split of authority as to this point.)
Morton v. National Medical Enterprises, Inc., 725 A.2d 462, 465 (D.C. 1999). (In a psychiatric malpractice action brought by former patients of the defendant psychiatric hospital alleging inappropriate, inadequate, and abusive treatment, the plaintiffs' claims accrued at the time of their hospitalization and so were time-barred. The plaintiffs were not aware of the full extent of their claims at that time, but they were aware of their injuries, that the defendant was the cause in fact of those injuries, and of some evidence of wrongdoing by the defendant. The patients suspected at that time that the defendant's conduct was fraudulent or inappropriate in that it was driven by insurance considerations rather than by medical necessity.)
Sanders v. United States, 551 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1977) , applying federal law. (An action by a registered nurse was barred by the lapse of nine years. She suffered a rupture of the uterus and a laceration of her bladder during a cesarean section. She was given her medical records but failed for three years to examine them.)
Burns v. Bell, 409 A.2d 614 (D.C. Ct. App. 1979). (Summary judgment for the defendant on the basis of the statute of limitations is improper where a fact question exists as to when the plaintiff discovered the injury. Following facelift surgery the plaintiff noticed scarring and experienced numbness and pain, all of which the defendant explained would disappear in time. The corrective surgery did not improve the condition and the defendant kept assuring the plaintiff she would recover.)
Anderson v. George, 717 A.2d 876, 878 (D.C. 1998). (The continuous treatment applied the plaintiff's medical malpractice case, which was filed more than three years after the surgical procedure that was the subject of the complaint, but less than three years after her discharge from the hospital. Under the rule, the statute of limitations on the plaintiff's claim was tolled until the defendant doctor ceased to treat the plaintiff for the specific matter at hand. The action arose from the defendant's allegedly negligent performance of a laparoscopic tubal sterilization on the plaintiff.)