The statute of limitations is set to expire on a medical malpractice case and not sure if there is a solid case. Should a complaint be filed to preserve the right to sue or is the risk that plaintiff incur a counter complaint and fees keep plaintiff from filing? Anyone experience with this?

I guess, in any case, whenever one consider filing a case in court for whatever causes , it should know if they have the right cause of action. Weak or strong a case should be filed in court. It is up for the court to consider the veracity of the case.

For practical consideration, I guess it would not be wise to file the case. Given the facts that building a solid case is not viable, it would be taxing to wage a court proceedings.
Besides, counter complaint (as you point out) against the complainant can be approximated, adding burden.

My view:
All possible options can be viable legally and can have great effects in your favor.
It is all a matter of choice.
If you choose filing the case, file it now, or else your time allowance will be barred. Do extensive case study and analysis to frame possible theories. Gather much evidence as you can. If possible, move for an extension of time with the court- in whatever matters.

The peril of a counter claim can always be anticipated by the plaintiffs. It is part and parcel of waging a case. The same hold true with the fees and other cost of suits. Thus, not an excuse.

To cap. file the case.

All the views have their own credence. To my mind, filing or not filing can be crucial especially the impending time barrier. Just make the best move after considering all the details needed.Good Luck.

All the views have their own credence. To my mind, filing or not filing can be crucial especially the impending time barrier. Just make the best move after considering all the details needed.Good Luck.