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
THE 15-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING THE ESCALATOR IN DEFENDANT’S THEATER IMPROPERLY WHEN HE FELL OFF BACKWARDS TO THE FLOOR; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A DEFECTIVE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE; THE THEATER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THE CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT A SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO WHETHER RESPONDENT FATHER WAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL, A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL IN A STAIRWAY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
UNEXECUTED CONTRACT THAT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN A LIFETIME NOT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT LLC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF A DECEASED MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).
SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF THE END OF PRECIPITATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT LIABLE, NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO RENEW DID NOT AFFECT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOUR HOUR RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE IN THIS ACTION ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT A PROPER SUICIDE ASSESSMENT; THE FLAWS IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT PROVIDE A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED PRIOR TO THE STORM, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AND RULED UPON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AFTER A DEFENDANT DIED (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

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...