You are here: / / NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT...
, ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s notice of claim in this medical malpractice action was timely served as a matter of law under the continuous treatment doctrine. Two justices, in a concurring decision, agreed that the action should not have been dismissed, but argued there was a question of fact whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied:

On January 25, 2006, plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant HHC. At the 50-h hearing in June 2006, plaintiff testified that while her last actual medical treatment at Lincoln Hospital occurred on October 19, 2005, when hospital personnel removed the sutures from her leg, she received a follow-up appointment to return to Lincoln Hospital on October 24, 2005. Plaintiff stated that she arrived at Lincoln Hospital for treatment on that date, but was informed that the staff could not locate her medical records and that she should return to the Hospital in one week, on October 31, 2005. Plaintiff testified that she did, in fact, return on October 31, only to have the staff inform her that they did not accept her insurance and that she should seek treatment elsewhere.

… [P]laintiff argued, her last treatment date was October 31, 2005 and thus, she had timely served her notice of claim on January 25, 2006. Hill v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00914, 1st Dept 2-7-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED AS A MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE)

You might also like
MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE WAS TIMELY; ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE RE: EXPERT WHO DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN.
THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND SEX DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS WERE NOT UNTIMELY BECAUSE A CONTINUING COURSE OF CONDUCT LEADING UP TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WAS ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE SCAFFOLD BRACING BAR OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
VERDICT AWARDING $0 DAMAGES FOR FUTURE AND PAIN SUFFERING SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, $100,000 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE INSURER’S OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BASED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE EXISTED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER SUCH THAT THE BROKER COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR A DEMOLITION PROJECT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGED RETALIATORY ACTIONS BY THE EMPLOYER TOOK PLACE YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF STOPPED WORKING FOR THE EMPLOYER, THE COMPLAINT STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION FOR RETALIATORY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S FIRING FOR WORKPLACE DISRUPTION AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS STEMMING... THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR NYC PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE...