All other issues aside, the language you quote is "could or should". The issue is not whether you come across an expert or additional information years later and re-evaluate the information you already have - the issue is whether you could or should have availed yourself of such assistance during the statutory period.

The language at issue is most likely to be implicated in the event that the defendant has hidden, destroyed or tampered with evidence that, if brought to light, would have affected an evaluation of whether malpractice occurred.