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
THE BIG APPLE MAP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED TO FIX A DEFICIENCY IN PLEADING THAT THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT.
Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)
LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT).
THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK CAN BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE NYC APARTMENTS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL MOVED TO SUPPRESS AN UNNOTICED EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AFTER BEING TOLD THE IDENTIFICATION WOULD BE PRECLUDED IF HE DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS; DEFENSE COUNSEL INTRODUCED DEFENDANT’S MUG SHOT DESPITE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PHOTO ID; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO A DETECTIVE’S IMPROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN A BLURRY VIDEO; THE MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ADMISSION OF THE RESULTS OF A MACHINE GENERATED BLOOD TEST WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Hearsay Deemed Insufficient to Support Determination One Year Statute of Limitations in Labor Law 740 Trumps the One-Year-Ninety-Days...