You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined that plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action, despite a 30-month period between visits. Decision holding that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations precludes the application of the continuous treatment doctrine should not be followed:

Plaintiff saw defendant over the course of four years, underwent two surgeries at his hand, and saw no other doctor for her shoulder during this time. She returned to him after the thirty-month gap, discussed yet a third surgery with him, and accepted his referral to his partner only because defendant was no longer performing such surgeries. Plaintiff’s testimony regarding feeling discouraged with defendant’s treatment does not demonstrate as a matter of law that she never intended to return to his care; in fact, her testimony reveals that she considered defendant her only doctor during this time. Nor does the fact that defendant repeatedly told plaintiff she should return “as needed” foreclose a finding that the parties anticipated further treatment. Notably, Plaintiff’s injury was a chronic, long-term condition which both plaintiff and defendant understood to require continued care. Each of plaintiff’s visits to defendant over the course of seven years were “for the same or related illnesses or injuries, continuing after the alleged acts of malpractice” … . As to the 30-month period between visits, we have previously held that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations “is not per se dispositive of defendant’s claim that the statute has run” … . To the extent that lower courts have held to the contrary … , those cases should not be followed. Lohnas v Luzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 01114, CtApp 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the hospital’s (Crouse Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The defendant doctor was not a hospital employee and no hospital employee was named in the complaint or bill of particulars. The plaintiff, in answering the hospital’s summary judgment motion, claimed for the first time that two nurses were negligent. That new theory of recovery could not defeat the motion:

​

Following discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, contending that the physician defendant was not its employee and that the hospital therefore could not be held vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. In opposing the motion, plaintiff did not address the hospital’s contention with respect to the physician defendant’s employment status and instead argued for the first time that two of the hospital’s nurses were negligent and that the hospital was vicariously liable for their actions. In our view, that is a new theory of recovery and thus could not be used by plaintiff to defeat the hospital’s motion … . We note that plaintiff did not move to amend the bill of particulars to allege that the hospital was vicariously liable for the nurses’ negligence. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not dispute that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the physician defendant, there was no basis to deny the motion, which we now grant. DeMartino v Kronhaus, 2018 NY Slip Op 00974, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ANSWERING PAPERS,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice against the resident (O’Donnell) who assisted the plaintiff’s surgeon (Weise) should have been dismissed. Although the resident severed a nerve during the bone drilling procedure, the resident was under the supervision of the surgeon and exercised no independent judgment. Therefore the action against the resident and the hospital (Crouse Hospital), as the resident’s employer, should have been dismissed:

​

It is well settled that a “resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene” … . Even where a resident “play[s] an active role in [plaintiff’s] procedure,” the resident cannot commit malpractice unless he or she was shown to have exercised some ” independent medical judgment’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff was Wiese’s patient, and Wiese determined the type of surgery to be performed on plaintiff. The deposition testimony of O’Donnell and Wiese establishes that O’Donnell was acting as a resident under Wiese’s direction and supervision during the procedure. Indeed, Wiese testified at his deposition and averred in his affidavit that he supervised O’Donnell’s selection of the location and angle of the drill, and that he made the decision to stop drilling. We therefore conclude that O’Donnell and Crouse Hospital met their burden on the motion by establishing that O’Donnell did not exercise independent medical judgment with respect to his operation of the drill, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Blendowski v Wiese, 2018 NY Slip Op 00973, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s breach of contract action in this medical malpractice case was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action:

​

… [A] cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract to provide medical services “will withstand a test to its legal sufficiency only where it is based upon an express special promise to effect a cure or to accomplish some definite result”… . Here, the plaintiff’s allegations, even supplemented by her affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract to provide medical services. The plaintiff’s allegations as to the formation and terms of any alleged contract are vague and entirely conclusory. Moreover, the alleged damages, which are in the nature of pain and suffering, are not recoverable in a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract to provide medical services … . Detringo v South Is. Family Med., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00821, Second Dept 2-7-18

CONTRACT LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTRACT LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly allowed petitioner (Townsend) to file a late notice of claim against the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Petitioner had been treated for a lacerated thumb. Petitioner did not learn a tendon had been torn until after the 90-day period for filing a notice of claim had passed. He hired an attorney shortly thereafter. The attorney requested petitioner’s medical records from HHC but had not received them by the time the statute of limitations was about to run out. At that point the attorney petitioned for leave to file a late notice of claim. Although HHC did not have timely actual knowledge of the nature of the malpractice claim, because the torn tendon was not mentioned in the HHC medical records, the petitioner’s excuse for not filing the notice of claim (HHC’s failure to provide the medical records) was deemed sufficient:

​

The actual knowledge requirement “contemplates actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim,’ not knowledge of a specific legal theory” … . Facts found in medical records that merely “suggest” the possibility of malpractice are insufficient, as a plaintiff must demonstrate a hospital’s actual knowledge of negligent acts or omissions which result in injury to a plaintiff … . Supreme Court correctly found that HHC did not acquire actual knowledge of Townson’s malpractice claim through the medical records.

The dissent concedes that Townson … did not learn of [his] torn tendon until March 19, 2015, after the 90-day period had expired. The dissent argues that Townson’s excuse may have been reasonable had he requested leave to file shortly after March 19, 2015, when he learned of the torn tendon. In the dissent’s view the delay in serving the notice of claim is not excusable.

We disagree. Townson’s claim of malpractice is premised upon a theory that the emergency room failed to evaluate whether internal, connective soft tissue damage resulted from the deep laceration. Townson’s counsel, at the time he was retained, which was immediately after Townson had learned of the torn tendon, promptly sent a request to HHC for the medical records to discern the viability of Townson’s malpractice claim, but HHC failed to respond on multiple occasions … . Matter of Townson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 00607, First Dept 2-1-18

​

MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NYC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (HHC) DID NOT HAVE TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PETITIONER’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM, THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE MEDICAL RECORDS UPON REQUEST JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a release which related to a medical center and any joint tortfeasors did not preclude a medical malpractice action against doctors who were not employees of the medical center. The plaintiff had undergone surgery for a deviated septum. During the surgery plainitff’s teeth were damaged by the anesthesiologist, an employee of the medical center. The medical center settled with the plaintiff and plaintiff signed a release. The medical malpractice action against the surgeons was not related to the damaged teeth:

​

… [T]he release is unambiguously limited to tortfeasors jointly liable with the Medical Center. “At common law the joint and several liability imposed on joint tort-feasors was indivisible, and any one of the joint tort-feasors was liable to the injured party for the entire damage”… . A hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of independently retained doctors who are not employees of the hospital or are not held out as agents of the hospital … . Here, the defendants do not contend that the defendant doctors were employees of the Medical Center, or that they held themselves out as agents of the Medical Center. As such, there would be no basis for joint liability with the Medical Center. Further, the injuries claimed in this action are different from those claimed against and settled with the Medical Center. The lost crown and broken teeth caused by the anesthesiologist, an employee of the Medical Center, are completely distinct from the damages claimed in this action. Hoffmann v Horn, 2018 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (RELEASES, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RELEASE WHICH PERTAINED TO MEDICAL CENTER AND ANY JOINT TORTFEASORS DID NOT PRECLUDE A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST SURGEONS WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE MEDICAL CENTER, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT)

, ,

PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages in a medical malpractice action stemming from the defendant doctor’s (Mercado’s) destruction of handwritten notes made at the time plaintiff’s decedent was seen by the doctor. Plaintiff’s decedent, a child, Claudialee, died as a result of Mercado’s failure to diagnose diabetes:

​

… [W]e now hold that where, as here, a plaintiff recovers compensatory damages for a medical professional’s malpractice, a plaintiff may also recover punitive damages for that medical professional’s act of altering or destroying medical records in an effort to evade potential medical malpractice liability. Allowing an award of punitive damages for a medical professional’s act of altering or destroying medical records in an effort to evade potential medical malpractice liability will serve to deter medical professionals from engaging in such wrongful conduct, punish medical professionals who engage in such conduct, and express public condemnation of such conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury … . Gomez v Cabatic, 2018 NY Slip Op 00278, Second Dept 1-17-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, DESTRUCTION OF WRITTEN NOTES, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the complaint sounded in medical malpractice, not common law negligence, and was therefore untimely. Plaintiff alleged she fell off a stretcher as she was being positioned for a chest X-ray. The attempt to amend the complaint to allege a negligent hiring cause of action failed because the facts underlying negligent hiring were not the same as the facts underlying the original complaint. Therefore the relation-back doctrine did not apply:

​

As described by plaintiff in her affidavit, the technician’s conduct in placing plaintiff’s body in a certain position, so as to obtain accurate imaging in an Xray directed by a physician at defendant hospital, bore a “substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician” … . Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint sounds in medical malpractice and was correctly dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 214-a). …

​

CPLR 203(f) provides, “A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claims in the original pleading were interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … .

The original complaint asserts one cause of action that arose from plaintiff’s Xray on July 5, 2012. The proposed negligent hiring and failure to promulgate regulations claims arise from different facts and implicate different duties based on conduct preceding, and separate and different from, the alleged negligence of the Xray technician on that date. Thus, the relation back doctrine is inapplicable because the facts alleged in the original complaint failed to give notice of the facts necessary to support the amended pleading … . Lang-Salgado v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00248, First Dept 1-16-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, RELATION BACK DOCTRINE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 214-a (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 203 (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department determined plaintiffs’ battery and medical malpractice causes of action properly survived summary judgment. The court noted that the defendants had submitted plaintiff’s testimony in support of summary judgment and thereby demonstrate triable issues of fact. With respect to the battery cause of action, the court wrote:

​

It is “well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . Here, plaintiffs allege in the complaint that “defendant physician knew that . . . she was exceeding the scope of . . . plaintiff’s consent by performing a medical procedure that . . . plaintiff had not authorized” …  and, inasmuch as defendants do not challenge the battery claim with respect to the element of causation, we conclude that plaintiffs have stated such a claim. Tirado v Koritz, 2017 NY Slip Op 08954, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’s TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)/BATTERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)

,

PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARE OF A CHILD BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFECT AFTER IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ACCRUES UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT WHEN THE EGG WAS IMPLANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Jude DiFiore, over a dissent, determined that the statute of limitations in these actions stemming from in vitro fertilization began to run upon the baby’s birth, not when the egg was implanted. Here the eggs were not screened for a genetic defect. The lawsuits were based upon the theory that, but for the malpractice, the babies would not have been born and sought compensation for the extraordinary expenses necessary to care for the children:

​

Two couples — the Dennehys and the Farbers — sought in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment from defendant Dr. Alan Copperman at defendant Reproductive Medicine Associates of New York, LLP (RMA). The couple discussed the possibility of using an egg donor. Copperman informed each couple that RMA screened donor candidates for all known genetic conditions for which testing is available, but did not state which conditions were included in the screening. The couple then matched with an anonymous egg donor and, after consenting to the IVF procedure, the plaintiff mother was implanted with fertilized embryos using the donor eggs. Pregnancy was confirmed and the couple was discharged to their obstetrician/gynecologist. Each plaintiff mother later gave birth without complications — the Dennehys had a single infant and the Farbers had twins. Following birth, Copperman learned that the egg donor had tested positive for the Fragile X trait, a chromosomal abnormality that can result in intellectual disability and other deficits. He informed the couples within one year of the births, and testing later confirmed that the Dennehys’ infant and one of the Farbers’ twins had the full Fragile X mutation. …

​

In 1978, this Court recognized a new, narrow cause of action permitting parents to recover the extraordinary care and treatment expenses “accruing as a consequence of the birth” of a child with a disability … . This claim, “founded essentially upon a theory of negligence or medical malpractice,” requires “a duty flowing from defendants to [plaintiffs] and that the breach of that duty was the proximate cause of the birth of their infants” … . The claim is restricted to those instances in which the plaintiffs can demonstrate “that but for the defendants’ breach of their duty to advise plaintiffs, the latter would not have been required to assume these [extraordinary financial] obligations” … . In other words, parents bringing this type of action may seek to recover only “‘the increased financial obligation arising from the extraordinary medical treatment rendered the child during minority'”… . No recovery is allowed for any consequent psychic or emotional damages …, nor may parents recover the ordinary costs of raising a healthy child born by reason of so-called wrongful conception… . The extraordinary expenses claim belongs to the parents alone — the child cannot bring a claim for “wrongful life” … . This is because, as a matter of public policy, an infant born in an impaired state suffers no legally cognizable injury in being born compared to not having been born at all … .

​

The action’s gravamen is that, but for defendants’ negligence, the parents would not have conceived or given birth to a child requiring extraordinary expenses for treatment and care. Plaintiffs allege that, by failing to take steps to detect that the egg donor was a carrier for Fragile X and therefore that the embryo may have had the Fragile X trait, defendants left the parents in an uninformed state as to whether to avert pregnancy or birth — and the associated costs resulting from birth. Given the nature of these allegations, it follows that until the alleged misconduct results in the birth of a child, there can be no extraordinary expenses claim. Moreover, we have stated that the “legally cognizable injury” is that the parents will incur extraordinary expenses to care for and treat the child … . These expenses arise “as a consequence of the birth” … , not just the conception. Prior to a live birth, it is impossible to ascertain whether parents will bear any extraordinary expenses … . Due to these unique circumstances, the cause of action accrues upon the birth of an infant with a disability. This date appropriately balances the competing statute of limitations policy concerns — it gives parents a reasonable opportunity to bring suit while at the same time limiting claims in a manner that provides certainty and predictability to medical professionals engaged in fertility treatment and prenatal care … . B.F. v Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of N.Y., LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 08712, CtApp 12-14-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARE OF A CHILD BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFECT AFTER IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ACCRUES UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT WHEN THE EGG WAS IMPLANTED (CT APP))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ( PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARE OF A CHILD BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFECT AFTER IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ACCRUES UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT WHEN THE EGG WAS IMPLANTED (CT APP))/IN VITRO FERTILIZATION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARE OF A CHILD BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFECT AFTER IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ACCRUES UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT WHEN THE EGG WAS IMPLANTED (CT APP))/GENETIC DEFECT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION,  PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARE OF A CHILD BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFECT AFTER IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ACCRUES UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT WHEN THE EGG WAS IMPLANTED (CT APP))/FRAGILE X TRAIT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, IN VITRO FERTILIZATION, PARENTS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARE OF A CHILD BORN WITH A GENETIC DEFECT AFTER IN VITRO FERTILIZATION ACCRUES UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, NOT WHEN THE EGG WAS IMPLANTED (CT APP))

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