Additional Recent Decisions on Continuous Treatment
In their Medical Malpractice column, Thomas A. Moore and Matthew Gaier write that where applicable, the continuous treatment doctrine permits medical malpractice actions to be brought beyond the statutory two-and-a-half year period after the malpractice. Recent decisions demonstrate that whether the ongoing treatment is related to the original condition remains a significant factor in determining the applicability of the doctrine.
June 01, 2015 at 03:08 PM
13 minute read
In last month's column, which focused on the Appellate Division, First Department's recent decision on continuous treatment in Devadas v. Niksarli, 120 A.D.3d 1000 (1st Dept. 2014), we noted that there have been several interesting Appellate Division decisions on the subject in the years since it had last been addressed in this column.1 Where applicable, the continuous treatment doctrine permits medical malpractice actions to be brought beyond the statutory two-and-a-half year period after the malpractice.
Devadas posed a somewhat unusual situation in that the continuity of treatment was premised, in part, on evidence that the defendant gave the plaintiff a lifetime guarantee relative to the operative procedure that was the subject of the malpractice claim. The other recent Appellate Division decisions of interest involve more typical circumstances. They are discussed in this month's column.
In adopting the continuous treatment doctrine as the law of this state in Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155 (1962), the Court of Appeals held that it applies “when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint….” The court continues to adhere to that articulation of the rule.2 Whether ongoing treatment was related to the original condition or complaint is a frequent point of contention that has been addressed in several appellate decisions in recent years. The issue commonly arises in actions involving a delay in diagnosis. In such circumstances, it is often necessary to establish that the complaints that were the subject of ongoing treatment were related to the condition that went undiagnosed.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'If You Are Aware of Areas for Improvement and You Can Play a Role in That, Speak Up,' Says Jennifer Mellott of Freshfields
- 3'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5Burns & Levinson to Wind Down After 64 Years in Boston
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250