Continuing Course of Treatment Doctrine Not Applicable
In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff alleged her pediatrician [Walders] was negligent in failing to properly address the condition of her foot, which turned out to be a symptom of a disorder that went undiagnosed for many years. In upholding the trial court’s determination that the “continuing course of treatment” doctrine (which would toll the statute of limitations) did not apply, the Third Department explained:
A “course of treatment speaks to affirmative and ongoing conduct by the physician” which is recognized as such by both the patient and physician … .Notably, a “[r]outine examination of a seemingly healthy patient, or visits concerning matters unrelated to the condition at issue giving rise to the claim, are insufficient to invoke the benefit of the [continuous treatment] doctrine” … . Here, the record is devoid of any evidence that would support a finding that Walders provided affirmative treatment to plaintiff for a condition related to her foot and Walders’ failure to diagnose or treat the condition in response to the concerns of plaintiff’s mother does not, by itself, establish an ongoing course of treatment … . Dugan v Troy Pediatrics, LLP, 515407, 3rd Dept 4-11-13