My question involves medical malpractice in the state of: Pennsylvania
I had surgery ~8 yrs ago for sleep apnea. I felt a "snapping" senation 1 wk afterwards, along with resumed symptoms, that led me to believe the surgery had failed. My doctors, who had acces to the same info (I hid nothing), disagreed, and continue to disagree--I even have a cert. letter from the in-house "greivance committee" stating this.
Now, I've had trouble getting legal help here due to the SOL. But how could I "reasonably know," yet the more-experienced doctors fail to know, given the same data?
I'm inclined to take this to the next level, so that the medical doctors would have to argue one of four possible arguments:
1. He knew all along/we knew all along (malice?)
2. He knew/we didn't (incompetence?)
3. No-one knew (no SOL issue?)
4. He didn't know/we did (why?)
My hope is such action would either resolve the SOL issue favorably, so that my case would be more marketable, or they'd at least be forced to argue they "knew," too, making medical attention easier.
So, what is necessary to "know/reasonably know" vs "suspect"?

