You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY...
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine:

“Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the 2½ year period does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment, when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint'” … . The doctrine “applies when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient,” which is generally “manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during that last visit, . . . for the purpose of administering ongoing corrective efforts for the same or a related condition” …  Further “[i]ncluded within the scope of continuous treatment’ is a timely return visit instigated by the patient to complain about and seek treatment for a matter related to the initial treatment” ,,, ,

In the present case, [defendant doctor] testified at his deposition that when he discussed treatment options with the plaintiff, he advised the plaintiff that a new treatment process was available outside the United States and that he was cautiously optimistic that, at some time in the foreseeable future, he could offer it to the plaintiff in New York. The plaintiff, who was aware that the treatment process was the subject of a study aimed at obtaining FDA approval, testified at his deposition that he was waiting for the new treatment process to become available. After being told, in November 2008, that his only options were to wait for the new treatment or seek treatment outside the country, the plaintiff returned to the defendants for treatment of the same condition on March 9, 2011, and, in fact, received treatment for the same condition from the defendants continuing until December 2012. Freely v Donnenfeld, 2017 NY Slip Op 03491, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
Several Similar Thefts from the Same Store Constituted a Single, Continuing Crime
MOTHER’S MOTION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED TYPE SIZE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSIDER LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES IF THEY FOUND DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE HIGHER OFFENSE ON THE BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY LAW 329 PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN BRING ACTIONS TO CANCEL RECORDED ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFF LACKED STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE TOWN OF BABYLON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT WAS ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND 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

ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S... ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS...