The United States of America law has an endorsement that sets the limit within which a legal lawsuit ought to start. The law has a statute that disqualifies prosecution for crimes or debt, which took place over two years. The statute of limitation does not allow prosecution for an offense committed past two years. The statute denies justice to some victims who have sufficient evidence for convicting the guilty, even after initiating the prosecution process two years later. However, the statute of limitation is an essential effort in ensuring administration of justice to accused persons as evidence degenerate over time because as time passes evidence can disappear, crime scene change, evidence corrupted or records damaged.
The defendant attorney is claiming Mrs. Casey case as void because of initiating the prosecution process two years later after the occurrence of the crime, which the statute of limitation does not allow. However, the defendant claim is not true. The statute of limitation statute cannot deter Mrs. Casey legal proceedings since she filed a case regarding her early dismissal from the hospital, despite her unhealthy condition after the birth of the second, within the stipulated time limit of 2 years (Guido, 2009).
There is no enough evidence from the defendant claim that can supports the claim that the statute of limitation should prevent Mrs. Casey from pursuing legal justice from the injustice she encountered following her early dismissal from the hospital, despite her failing despite the physician’s recommendation for her to extend her stay by one day to monitor her condition. The dismissal resulted to her condition deteriorating, which eventually called for her re-hospitalized and admission in the ICU. The nurses dismissed Mrs. Casey on economic issues because they feared that if she stays one more day in the hospital, the insurance would not pay for the accruing bill. However, her dismissal was in spite of the physician recommendation for her to stay in the acute care setting for one more day for further evaluation. Thus, there is no enough evidence to bar Mrs. Casey getting a court proceeding because of the statute of limitation as she filed her case within the stipulated time limit of two years (Guido, 2009).
There is enough evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that the statute of limitation should not bar Mrs. Casey in her endeavor to get a fair legal hearing. The court should consider ruling the court proceedings for Mrs. Casey as valid as per the statute of limitation. Mrs. Casey case proceedings should be valid because she filled her case within the stipulated time limit of two years, which fall within the legal timeframe for initiating a legal prosecution. The defendant attorney should avoid introducing confusion between the first incidences that made Mrs. Casey to experiencing postpartum eclampsia, which is independent of the second instance, which she seeks prosecution for her early dismissal, despite being unwell and against the recommendation of the physician to extend her stay in acute care setting by one more day to assess her condition. There was negligence of the nurses on how they dismissed Mrs. Casey against the physician’s recommendation for her to stay one more day in the acute care setting for evaluating her condition. The dismissal resulted into her health condition worsening, which called for her re-hospitalization for three weeks and readmission in ICU. There is sufficient evidence for the validity of the prosecution. Mrs. Casey initiated the prosecution within the legal time span of two years, which is the legal timeframe for imitating legal prosecution (Croke, 2003).
After evaluating the evidence presented by the two parties, I would consider Mrs. Casey case proceedings as valid because she filed the prosecution within the required legal timeframe of two years.
In conclusion: statute of limitation is important in ensuring administration of justice. However, it should be appropriately determined to avoid denial of justice to affected victims in misrepresentation, as the defendant attorney is trying in the case of Mrs. Casey.
Reference List
Croke, E. (2003). Nurses, Negligence, and Malpractices. American Journal of Nursing.103, 9, 54-60.
Guido, G. (2009). Legal and Ethical Issues in Nursing (5th Ed). New York: Prentice Hall.