Williams v. Young M.D. PC

The Court of Appeals adopted the continuous treatment doctrine and concluded that plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was not barred as a matter of law because she filed her claim within two years of her last consultation with defendant.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this medical malpractice action, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants Devell R. Young, M.D., and Devell R. Young, M.D., P.C., on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired before plaintiff Margaret Williams filed her lawsuit. Williams appeals. For reasons stated below, we have decided to adopt the “continuous treatment” doctrine with respect to our statute of limitations for appropriate medical malpractice actions. Following the newly adopted “continuous treatment” doctrine, we conclude that there was a factual issue regarding the statute of limitations on Williams’ lawsuit, and we reverse the decision of the trial court.1

Viewed most favorably to Williams, the evidence shows that Williams first sought treatment from Dr. Young on September 29, 1995, complaining of swelling and pain in her left ankle and foot. Williams reported that she was a diabetic and also complained of proteninuria presence of protein in urine, elevated blood glucose and retinopathy vision problem associated with diabetes. Dr. Young did not observe any swelling in Williams’ foot, although he testified that the absence of swelling at any given moment was not unusual, because proteinuria was a condition which could show evidence of swelling one day, then none the next. Williams went to see Dr. Young repeatedly between September 29, 1995, and September 30, 1996, with complaints about her left foot and leg. Dr. Young treated her with antibiotics and with various medications for diabetes.

Williams v. Young M.D. PC

The Court of Appeals adopted the continuous treatment doctrine and concluded that plaintiff's medical malpractice claim was not barred as a matter of law because she filed her claim within two years of her last consultation with defendant.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report