You are here: / / THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL...
, ,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 AS TIME-BARRED WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT ARGUING THAT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUPPORTED APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND THE MATTER SHOULD PROCEED TO DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply and defendants’ motion to dismiss allegations of medical malpractice occurring before April 9, 2013, was properly granted. The decision is detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Accepting the plaintiff’s expansive view that the mere status of receiving treatment for menopausal symptoms necessarily encompasses all conditions related to menopause and aging, would undermine the sound policy reasons behind the continuous treatment doctrine … . Such a result is contrary to the foundational policy reasons for creating the continuous treatment doctrine, and could result in expanding it to virtually all the medical care a patient receives … . * * *

From the dissent:

The Supreme Court’s determination, endorsed by my colleagues in the majority, that the records submitted by the defendants never reference or address osteoporosis is, in fact, belied by those medical records created and submitted by the defendants, which document, inter alia, that, during the relevant period, the defendants assessed, treated, and monitored the plaintiff’s bone health, despite their failure to order a bone density test.

In sum, the majority’s characterization of certain of the defendants’ own documents fails to afford the plaintiff the favorable view through which the documents should be read … . Moreover, no discovery has been conducted yet, and “[t]he resolution of the continuous treatment issue . . . should abide relevant discovery” … . Weinstein v Gewirtz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the pre-discovery motion to dismiss medical malpractice causes of action as time-barred was affirmed. The dissenter argued the defendants’ own documents demonstrated the possible applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine and the matter should proceed to discovery.

 

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE JUSTIFIED CONSIDERING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY GRANTED, HOWEVER DELAYS IN DISCOVERY WARRANTED SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING IN THIS PARENTAL-ACCESS PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON A REPORT BY A FORENSIC EVALUATOR WHICH WAS NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN ORDER TO HOLD A PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, HERE THE INSTALLATION OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF A STAIRWELL WHICH ALLEGEDLY BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET, A PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DANGER (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR A TORT ACTION AGAINST A CHARTER SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH FATHER PAID WHAT HE OWED WHEN MOTHER FILED A PETITION FOR UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT, MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER STRUCK IT FROM BEHIND; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STOPPING THE CAR IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (AS OPPOSED TO MERELY FURNISHING THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT?) (SECOND DEPT).
PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPERLY ANNULLED, THE DENIAL WAS A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR DETERMINATIONS AND THE BOARD DID NOT SET FORTH FACTUAL REASONS FOR THE DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND 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

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL... THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE...