An action to recover damages for injury arising from any treatment or operation performed by, or from any omission by, a person who is a health care provider, regardless of the theory on which the action is based, shall be commenced within the later of:
A. Three years from the date of the injury, or
B. One year from the date the injury was discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered, except that an action may not be commenced under this paragraph more than 5 years from the date of the act or omission.
If a health care provider conceals from a patient a prior act or omission of the provider which has resulted in injury to the patient, an action shall be commenced within one year from the date the patient discovers the concealment or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the concealment or within the time limitation provided by sub. (1), whichever is later.
When a foreign object which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect has been left in a patient's body, an action shall be commenced within one year after the patient is aware or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have been aware of the presence of the object or within the time limitation provided by sub. (1), whichever is later.
Deborah S.S. v. Yogesh N.G., 499 N.W.2d 272 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993). (A patient sued her doctor for improper sexual conduct during an examination. The patient had been referred to the defendant for a neurological examination. The court concluded that the doctor's offending conduct was not part of the medical treatment and the doctor's intentional conduct did not amount to malpractice. Thus, the court applied the shorter limitiation period applicable to intentional torts.)
Fojut v. Stafl, 569 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). (In action for wrongful pregnancy based on failure of tubal ligation and ensuing pregnancy, the statute of limitations on action for wrongful pregnancy began to run on date the plaintiff became pregnant, rather than on the date she discovered her pregnancy. Although the failed procedure was the negligent act, the plaintiff did not suffer any injury until she became pregnant.)
Clark v. Erdmann, 161 Wis. 2d 428, 468 N.W.2d 18 (1991). (An action against a podiatrist is governed by the medical malpractice statute of limitations. Although holding that there was nothing in the pleadings or affidavits to suggest that the statute of limitations was tolled by a continuous course of negligent treatment, the court noted that it had not adopted the continuous treatment rule. Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has information that would constitute the basis for an objective belief of her injury and its cause.)
Tamminen v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 109 Wis. 2d 536, 327 N.W.2d 55 (1982). (Where the plaintiff alleges a continuing course of negligence as the basis of his cause of action, the action is timely brought if a portion of the treatment fell within the period of limitations, notwithstanding that some of the acts of negligence may have occurred without the statutory period. Wisconsin does not, however, recognize the continuous treatment doctrine. Note the dissenting opinion, however, which suggests that by this decision the court is in effect adopting the continuous treatment rule.)
Fojut v. Stafl, 569 N.W.2d 737, 742 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997). (Following the plaintiff's failed tubal ligation, there was no physically injurious change to plaintiff's body until she became pregnant, such that statute began to run on date plaintiff became pregnant. The parties agreed that the discovery rule was inapplicable; hence, the plaintiff's suit was time-barred.)