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
Labor Law 200/Common-Law Negligence Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated It Did Not Have the Authority to Supervise and Control the Work—Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action, However, Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Nondelegable Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace
AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON BEHALF OF A FORMER RESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF INSURER DENIED FOUR CLAIMS FOR NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH FOUR DISTINCT CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENTS PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT TO A WOMAN INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; EACH OF THE FOUR CLAIMS WAS FOR AN AMOUNT BELOW $5000; AN ARBITRATOR AWARDED THE CLAIMED BENEFITS TO THE DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF THEN SOUGHT DE NOVO REVIEW OF THE ARBITRAL AWARDS WHICH HAS A $5000 THRESHOLD; THE FOUR DISTINCT ARBITRAL AWARDS CANNOT BE COMBINED TO MEET THE $5000 THRESHOLD (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FIVE YEARS YOUNGER THAN DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FIDUCIARY TOLLING RULE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPERLY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS (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...