You are here: / / IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT...
, ,

IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE, AND THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dental malpractice action, determine there were questions of fact about (1) the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine to toll the statute of limitations, (2) the deviation from the standard of care, and (3) the lack of informed consent:

The instant case does not involve gaps in treatment longer than the 2½-year statute of limitations … , and “a discharge by a physician [or dentist] does not preclude application of the continuous treatment toll if the patient timely initiates a return visit to complain about and seek further treatment for conditions related to the earlier treatment” … . …

… [B]y submitting the affidavits of her experts, plaintiff raised issues of fact whether defendants deviated from the standard of care and whether such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . …

… [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact whether she would have opted for extraction of several teeth and placement of implants had she been fully informed … . Bellamy v Baron, 2021 NY Slip Op 00953, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

You might also like
SCHOOL MAY HAVE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE STUDENT’S CLAIM, BUT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Right to Counsel Did Not Attach When Community Activist Told Police Defendant’s Attorney Was On His Way to the Station
Uninhabited Trailer Met Definition of a “Building” Within the Meaning of the Arson Statute
SENTENCING COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE PLEA OFFER (FOURTH DEPT).
No Probable Cause for Arrest—Convictions Stemming from Arrest Reversed
“Searching Inquiry” Required Before Proceeding Without Attorney in SORA Hearing.
Default Finding Should Not Have Been Made Where Attorney Appeared and Asked for Adjournment
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

FRAUD WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY... THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION TO PRESENT TO A SECOND GRAND JURY RENDERING...