You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate the relation-back doctrine applied such that two physician’s assistants (PA’s) could be added as defendants after the statute of limitations had expired. There was no evidence the PA’s and the doctors were united in interest and no evidence the PA’s had timely notice of the suit:

In a negligence or malpractice action “the defenses available to two defendants will be identical, and thus their interests will be united, only where one is vicariously liable for the acts of the other” … . … As the PA defendants were employed by the practice, not the individual doctor defendants, there is no vicarious liability based on respondeat superior … . …  [T]he plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that the PA defendants were directly supervised or controlled by the doctor defendants in their care and treatment of the decedent.

… The record is devoid of evidence that the PA defendants had notice that an action had been commenced against the doctor defendants prior to the expiration in 2014 of the statute of limitations for the medical malpractice and wrongful death causes of action. Sanders v Guida, 2023 NY Slip Op 00455, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: Here two of the three prongs of the relation-back doctrine should not have been applied to allow adding two physician’s assistants (PA’s) as defendants in this med mal case after the statute of limitations had run. The defendant doctors were not the PA’s employers or supervisors (the doctors and PA’s were not united in interest) and the plaintiff did not show the PA”s had timely knowledge of the suit.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Dismissal of a Complaint Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) [Defense Based Upon Irrefutable Documentary Evidence] and CPLR 3211(a)(7) [Failure to State a Cause of Action] Explained
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON THE NOTE AND DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS OF FACT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; FATHER’S ATTORNEY EXPLAINED FATHER’S ABSENCE AND REQUESTED AN INQUEST; AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ENTERED UPON A PARTY’S DEFAULT BRINGS UP FOR REVIEW ONLY THE CONTESTED MATTERS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, PETITION PROPERLY DENIED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE; THE PRIOR RAPE... THE BOARD’S RULING THAT CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DELIVERY SERVICE...