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
NO ONE OBJECTED TO THE VERDICT SHEET BEFORE THE VERDICT AND JUROR AFFIDAVITS ALLEGING CONFUSION ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Landlord May Not Withhold Consent for Continued Operation of a Sidewalk Cafe Where the Lease Contemplated the Operation of the Cafe (Which Had Been in Operation for 50 Years) and Where the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Restricted the Landlord’s Ability to Withhold Consent/Erroneous Stipulated Fact Does Not Bind the Appellate Court
BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN NEW YORK CITY, WAS NOT A FATAL DEFECT (DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT CITE A VIOLATION OF ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, WHICH WOULD ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A CODE VIOLATION (FIRST DEPT).
BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT.
DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT DROVE THE WRONG WAY ON A HIGHWAY AND CRASHED HEAD-ON INTO AN ONCOMING CAR (FIRST DEPT).
THE PORTION OF THE NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT WHICH PROHIBITED ENGAGING IN A SIMILAR PRACTICE OF LAW WITHIN 90 MILES OF NYC FOR 36 MONTHS WAS NULL AND VOID; HOWEVER THE PORTION WHICH PROHIBITED THE SOLICITATION OF CLIENTS WAS ENFORCEABLE AND SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance).

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...