You are here: / / The Continuing Treatment Was Not Shown to Relate to the Condition Which...
, ,

The Continuing Treatment Was Not Shown to Relate to the Condition Which Caused the Alleged Injury

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs failed to raise a question of fact about whether the continuing treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations.  The medical malpractice action was therefore time-barred:

To establish that the continuous treatment doctrine applies, a plaintiff is ” required to demonstrate that there was a course of treatment, that it was continuous, and that it was in respect to the same condition or complaint underlying the claim of malpractice'” . It is undisputed that the radiology defendants were monitoring the plaintiff Robert Ceglio (hereinafter Robert) for postsurgical changes after he had a pituitary tumor removed. The plaintiffs allege that Robert suffered injuries as a result of a colloid cyst, which the radiology defendants failed to notice on his MRI scans when they were monitoring him for postsurgical changes. However, the plaintiffs presented no evidence to suggest that the colloid cyst, which allegedly caused the injuries complained of, was in any way connected to the pituitary changes for which the radiology defendants were monitoring Robert. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to raise a question of fact as to whether Robert received continuous treatment for the same condition underlying the claim of malpractice … . Ceglio v BAB Nuclear Radiology PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06291, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

You might also like
A PRESENTENCE REPORT MUST BE CREATED FOR EACH OFFENSE; HERE THE JUDGE USED A PRESENTENCE REPORT PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT UNRELATED OFFENSE; THE SENTENCE WAS ILLEGALLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
New York Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody and Visitation Matters Due to Child’s Substantial Contacts with California
Criteria for Exercising Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Based On Presence of Subsidiary Within Jurisdiction—the “Department Doctrine”
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION; ANY WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WENT TO ITS WEIGHT NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor

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

Question of Fact Whether Risk of Slipping on a Diving Board Was Increased by... Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting...