You are here: / / SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE...
,

SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant oncologist, Khulpateea, was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the malpractice complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The court held that the “continuous treatment doctrine” did not apply to extend the statute. Plaintiff's decedent saw Khulpateea several times, after referral from decedent's gynecologist, and Khulpateea performed surgical procedures on decedent. It was only the last procedure which discovered the cancer. Each procedure was deemed to constitute a discrete event which did not anticipate ongoing treatment by Khulpateea:

“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'” … . “Continuity of treatment is often found to exist when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient as manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during th[e] last visit, in conformance with the periodic appointments which characterized the treatment in the immediate past'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to show that there was a continuous course of treatment. The diagnostic services performed by Khulpateea were discrete and complete, and not part of a course of treatment … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence showing that the decedent and Khulpateea contemplated further treatment after the follow-up visit … . The decedent did not schedule another appointment with Khulpateea until she returned to see him in 2005, and she only did so then because [her gynecologist] referred her to him … . Nisanov v Khulpateea, 2016 NY Slip Op 02062, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH PLANKING WHICH DID NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT A SHAFT OPENING; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOREMAN INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ENTER THE SHAFT SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
Elements of Actions for (1) Discrimination in Employment and (2) Retaliation for Opposition to Discriminatory Practices Succinctly Described
Question of Fact Whether Property Owners Owed a Duty to Protect Plaintiff from an Assault During a Fair on the Premises
No Special Duty Owed by School District to Adult Employees
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PETITIONER, THE DECEASED MOTHER’S COUSIN, IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP CASE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF... WHERE DEFENDANT DOCTOR, IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOES NOT ADDRESS THE...