From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nielson v. Perconte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1998
254 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 5, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 2, 1997, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 18, 1997, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.

Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the two and one-half-year Statute of Limitations for a medical malpractice action ( see, CPLR 214-a) is tolled until after a plaintiff's last treatment "`when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint'" ( McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399, 405, quoting Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151; see also, Nykorchuck v. Henriques, 78 N.Y.2d 255, 258). Essential to the application of the doctrine is that a course of treatment has been established with respect to the condition that gives rise to the lawsuit ( see, Nykorchuck v. Henriques, supra, at 258-259). "[N]either the mere `continuing relation between physician and patient' nor `the continuing nature of a diagnosis'. is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the doctrine" ( Nykorchuck v. Henriques, supra, at 259, quoting McDermott v. Torre, supra, at 405, 406; see also, Massie v. Crawford, 78 N.Y.2d 516, 520). Moreover, "continuous treatment does not contemplate circumstances where a patient initiates return visits merely to have his or her condition checked" ( McDermott v. Torre, supra, at 405).

Here, the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendant doctor undertook a continuous course of treatment of the decedent's skin cancer. To the contrary, the gravaman of the plaintiffs' claim is that the defendant doctor was negligent in failing to establish a course of treatment at all. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations ( see, Nykorchuck v. Henriques, supra). The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nielson v. Perconte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1998
254 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Nielson v. Perconte

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD C. NIELSON et al, Appellants v. SALVATORE G. PERCONTE et al…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 5, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
680 N.Y.S.2d 105

Citing Cases

Sill v. State

Finally, under the continuous treatment doctrine, which is not discussed by either party, a statute of…

Shields v. Baktidy

The Supreme Court erred, however, in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was to dismiss as…