You are here: / / CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT...
, ,

CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED.

The Second Department determined a capsule camera swallowed by plaintiff to facilitate an intestinal examination was not a foreign object for purposes of the statute of limitations. The statute runs from discovery of a foreign object which has been left in the body during surgery. However, the capsule camera was not part of a surgical procedure and it was designed to pass out of the body normally. The plaintiff alleged that the failure to call plaintiff’s attention to a 2009 CT scan on which the capsule camera was visible constituted negligence. The Second Department found that the cause of action was really “misdiagnosis” for which the foreign-object toll of the statute of limitations is not available. The action was therefore time-barred:

​

Generally, “[a]n action for medical . . . malpractice must be commenced within two years and six months of the act, omission or failure complained of” (CPLR 214-a). However, “where the action is based upon the discovery of a foreign object in the body of the patient, the action may be commenced within one year of the date of such discovery or of the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier” (CPLR 214-a). The statute provides that a “fixation device” is not a “foreign object” (CPLR 214-a).

” [I]n determining whether an object which remains in the patient constitutes a “foreign object,” [courts] should consider the nature of the materials implanted in a patient, as well as their intended function'” … . “In short, every fixation device is intentionally placed for a continuing (even if temporary) treatment purpose, but it does not follow that everything that is intentionally placed for a continuing treatment purpose is a fixation device”… . Thus, in determining whether objects are foreign objects pursuant to CPLR 214-a, “[t]he question then becomes whether . . . [the objects] are analogous to tangible items like . . . [surgical] clamps . . . or other surgical paraphernalia (e.g., scalpels, sponges, drains) likewise introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure” … .

The capsule camera at issue herein was used diagnostically to visualize the condition of the plaintiff’s intestines. It was not used or even introduced into the plaintiff’s body in the course of a surgical procedure. Rather, the capsule camera was knowingly and intentionally swallowed by the plaintiff with the expectation that it would travel through her digestive system until eliminated in the regular course of digestion. Thus, the malpractice alleged against the moving defendants, the failure to recognize from the 2009 CT scan that the observed metallic object was a retained endoscopic capsule camera, and to advise the plaintiff of such, ” is most logically classified as one involving misdiagnosis—a category for which the benefits of the “foreign object” discovery rule have routinely been denied'”  … . Leace v Kohlroser, 2017 NY Slip Op 04429, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FOREIGN OBJECTS, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, FOREIGN OBJECT, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)/CAPSULE CAMERA (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FOREIGN OBJECT, CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED)

You might also like
Assault by NYC Firefigthers in a Restaurant Raised Questions of Fact Whether the City Defendants Were Liable for the Injuries to the Plaintiffs Based Upon Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and/or Retention/Fact that Suit Could Not Be Based Upon Respondeat Superior (Actions Outside the Scope of Employment) Did Not Preclude Suit Based Upon City’s Own Alleged Negligence (!)
A PHOTOGRAPH DOWNLOADED FROM FACEBOOK ALLEGEDLY SHOWING DEFENDANT WEARING CLOTHES SIMILAR TO THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMIITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHILE ATTENDING A BEACH-FRONT PARTY, SUFFERED SEVERE INJURY WHEN HE DOVE OFF A BULKHEAD INTO SHALLOW WATER; HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR FAILURE TO WARN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST THE PERSON WHO RENTED THE AREA FOR THE PARTY WAS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR FOR MARIJUANA WAS JUSTIFIED, THE FORGED CREDIT CARDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND SIEZED; THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE CARDS WHICH INDICATED THEY WERE CONTRABAND UNDER THE “PLAIN VIEW” DOCTRINE; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE CRITERIA FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES UNDER THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS WORTH CONSULTING (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL), PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY DID NOT NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE CHANGED SALE-DATE AND DISPOSED OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY AT THE TIME OF THE SALE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE LIEN LAW AND DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLD BY DEFENDANT’S DAUGHTER THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT ADDRESS; BUT, IN FACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT RESIDE AT THAT ADDRESS; SERVICE WAS INVALID (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

THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO... THE EMAIL EXCHANGE IN WHICH THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS AGREED TO DID NOT SATISFY...