Timing and deadlines count when it comes to filing court pleadings.

But a Connecticut litigant who learned this the hard way will get a second chance to bring her case after a state appellate court reversed in her favor, in litigation that hinged on the statute of limitations.

Plaintiff Delores Peek lost at trial because she filed her suit outside the time frame allowed under the statute of limitations, missing the deadline by 10 days. She brought a negligence suit against Manchester Memorial Hospital after a fall, but the Superior Court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment.

However, in a reversal, the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the lower tribunal, and found a genuine issue of material fact as to when Peek discovered that the hospital might be responsible for her fall. And that's what started the clock, the appellate court found, pinning the statute of limitations to the later date—the discovery period, not the day of the fall.

The appellate panel remanded the case to the lower court, where Peek sought unspecified damages and costs.

The lesson from the Peek case, according to attorney Kelly Reardon, who has represented numerous individuals in suits against medical institutions, is to file claims as early as possible.

"You need to file early so the statute of limitations has not expired in these claims," said Reardon, who was not involved in the litigation. "Sometimes, the client doesn't come to you until years after the malpractice has occurred."

In such cases, Reardon turns to exceptions, such as the continuing course of treatment, which can extend the deadline. But it's a challenge.

"It's more likely that a hospital or hospital-based medical provider will not be engaged in a continuing course of treatment," she said. "So it makes it more difficult to tie in hospitals in these cases when the statute of limitations has expired."

Peek was admitted to Manchester Memorial in 2015 with a severe case of diarrhea. The hospital assessed her, and found she had a risk for falling, according to the appellate court's synopsis of the case. Two weeks later, in February, Peek fell while using the hospital bathroom, and sustained injuries to her shoulder and neck.

Peek was unaware until about four months later that the hospital could have been at fault, according to the appellate court. In April 2015, her doctor told her that a nurse or nurse's aide at the hospital had been responsible for her safety.

If the court saw April, and not February, as the starting point, Peek would have filed her suit within the applicable time frame.

In November 2016, Peek received an automatic 90-day extension of the statute of limitations, pursuant to the state's General Statutes. But Peek's attorneys delivered legal papers to the state marshal for service on May 22, 2017. But according to the lower court, they needed to have done so 10 days earlier.

But the appellate court overruled and sided with the patient.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Bethany Alvord stated: "Because the evidence before the court, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to when the plaintiff discovered her injury as contemplated by [General Statutes 52-584], the court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff's action was time-barred."

Representing Peek was Hartford-based solo practitioner Neil Johnson, who could not be reached for comment.

Representing the hospital were Gretchen Randall, a principal with New Haven-based Neubert, Pepe & Monteith; and Emily McDonough Souza of Murtha Cullina in New Haven. Neither attorney responded to a request for comment Tuesday.