You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE ...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine, despite gaps in treatment exceeding the statute of limitations:

The determination whether continuous treatment exists “must focus on the patient” … and, “[i]n determining whether plaintiff[] raised an issue of fact concerning the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine, [her] version of the facts must be accepted as true” … . Based on plaintiff’s version of the facts, there is support in the record for a finding that plaintiff “intended uninterrupted reliance” upon defendant’s observation, directions, concern, and responsibility for overseeing her progress. Notably, during approximately 7 years of treatment with defendant, plaintiff underwent two surgeries, saw no other physician regarding her shoulder, and returned to him for further treatment, i.e., a potential third surgery, but was told that he did not treat or operate on shoulders anymore. Defendant referred plaintiff to another physician in his practice, and plaintiff went to that appointment, but was told that the second physician would not treat her. Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff left the September 5, 2003 appointment with a direction to see defendant “as needed” is not dispositive inasmuch as defendant conceded that “[o]bviously [plaintiff’s] problem is long standing and chronic. She most likely will need further surgery in the future due to her young age and need for revision shoulder replacement vs fusions.” Lohnas v Luzi, 2016 NY Slip Op 04819, 4th Dept 6-17-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINED TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF TWO LACERATIONS ON THE VICTIM’S NECK, 3-4 AND 5-6 CENTIMETERS LONG, SUPPORTED THE TWO COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT BASED UPON DISFIGUREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required Reversal of Plaintiff’s Verdict
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND FATHER AND PRIMARY CUSTODY TO FATHER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
HEARSAY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PROBATION (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Employee Had “Apparent Authority” to Act on Behalf of Defendant Insurance Agency—Plaintiff Justifiably Relied on the Apparent Authority When It Purchased a Fake Policy from Defendant’s Employee–Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Fraud Cause of Action
EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE INSURED’S WATER-DAMAGE CLAIM WAS FRAUDULENTLY INFLATED; INSURER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCLAIMING COVERAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER, FELL FROM AN 8-FOOT UNSECURED LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE A BIRD’S NEST FROM A GUTTER; THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT ROUTINE CLEANING AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

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

GUNPOINT DETENTION NOT JUSTIFIED, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESS... TAX ON CIGARETTE SALES TO NON-INDIANS UPHELD.