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
Contribution and Indemnification Unavailable in Breach of Contract Action; Notice of Claim Requirement Under Education Law Never Triggered by Denial of Payment
DESIGNATING ATTORNEY AS STANDBY COUNSEL WAS INSUFFICIENT, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR SENTENCING REQUIRED THE COURT TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO BE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING AND MADE FINDINGS OF FACT; CUSTODY ORDER VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE ORIGINAL BORROWERS AGAINST PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED, CIVIL CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR BOTH TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE WITNESSES AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WERE NOT CREDIBLE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOTEL PROPERLY FOUND NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; HOWEVER THE HOTEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED 100% OF THE FAULT (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiffs Entitled to Return of Down Payment When Mortgage Application Denied, In Spite of Failure to Apply for “No Income Check” Mortgage
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY.

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

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...