You are here: / / Continuous Treatment Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Explained...
, ,

Continuous Treatment Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Explained In Depth

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the jury’s conclusion the statute of limitations was tolled under the continuous treatment doctrine should not be disturbed.  Plaintiff underwent Lasik surgery and complained of blurry vision and other complications in several follow up visits which ended in 2004.  Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit after a subsequent visit in 2007.  The question was whether the 2007 visit was related to the 2004 visits such that the continuous treatment doctrine applied.  The court discussed the doctrine in depth.  The court noted that the doctrine did not apply to plaintiff-wife’s derivative claims:

Plaintiff … asserts that the 2007 visit satisfied CPLR 214-a, because it was for the “same” condition as the 2004 visits, which was blurry vision in his left eye. He further argues that whether he and defendant agreed that he would seek further treatment after the May 2004 visit is irrelevant, because defendant “guaranteed” that the Lasik procedure would correct the blurry condition, and stated that he was plaintiff’s “doctor for life” for that purpose.

Although the CPLR defines “continuous” treatment as treatment “for the same illness, injury or condition” out of which the malpractice arose (CPLR 214-a [emphasis added]), the controlling case law holds only that the subsequent medical visits must “relate” to the original condition … . Here, plaintiff initially engaged defendant to correct his blurry vision, and the 2007 visit was motivated by continued blurriness in plaintiff’s eye, thus making the two visits “related” … . Devadas v Niksarli, 2014 NY Slip Op 06032, 1st Dept 9-4-14

 

You might also like
BROWN PAPER ON TOP OF GREEN DUST ALLEGEDLY CONSTITUTED A SLIPPERY CONDITION ON THE FLOOR CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER TRIAL WHEN, IN FACT, HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS GROUND FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS SENTENCE AND THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.
DEFENDANT, A PODIATRIST, USING ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (OZONE THERAPY), TREATED PLAINTIFF FOR LYME DISEASE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE COULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARTY OVER WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Presumption Disability Related to World Trade Center Work Not Rebutted
STORM IN PROGRESS RULE RELIEVED DEFENDANTS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKED IN WATER; EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH PLAINTIFF’S OBSERVATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE ACCIDENT DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF URINE ON FLOOR.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Police Officer’s Tripping Over a Fire Hose at the Scene of a Fire Was... County Could Seek Judicial Intervention Re: the Collection of a County Hotel...