From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meier v. Huntington Hospital Association

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 13, 1992
186 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Summary

concluding that plaintiff's subsequent admission to hospital at direction of her attending physician did not toll statute of limitations against hospital for negligent diagnostic services; readmission was renewal rather than continuation of hospital-patient relationship

Summary of this case from Casey v. Levine

Opinion

October 13, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the case at bar is governed by the Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice actions (see, CPLR 214-a; Bleiler v Bodner, 65 N.Y.2d 65).

Furthermore, the court correctly concluded that the continuous treatment doctrine may not be applied to toll the Statute of Limitations as to the defendant hospital. The continuous treatment of a patient by his or her personal attending physician does not toll the Statute of Limitations as against an independent laboratory or a radiologist located in a hospital (see, Brocco v Westchester Radiological Assocs., 175 A.D.2d 903, 904). Here, there is no evidence of an agency or other "relevant relationship" between the defendant and the plaintiff's attending physician (see, McDermott v Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399, 408; Ruane v Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr., 60 N.Y.2d 908; Pierre-Louis v Chung-Yuan Hwa, 182 A.D.2d 55).

The diagnostic procedures and services performed by the defendant hospital were discrete and complete in October 1979 (see, McDermott v Torre, supra, at 405). The subsequent admission of the plaintiff to the hospital in March 1980, as directed by her attending physician, was a renewal rather than a continuation of the hospital-patient relationship (cf., Rizk v Cohen, 73 N.Y.2d 98, 105). Accordingly, the action against the defendant hospital, which was commenced in September 1982, more than two years and six months after the diagnostic procedures were completed, was time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214-a. Rosenblatt, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Meier v. Huntington Hospital Association

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 13, 1992
186 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

concluding that plaintiff's subsequent admission to hospital at direction of her attending physician did not toll statute of limitations against hospital for negligent diagnostic services; readmission was renewal rather than continuation of hospital-patient relationship

Summary of this case from Casey v. Levine
Case details for

Meier v. Huntington Hospital Association

Case Details

Full title:LOUISE F. MEIER, Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Also Known…

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

Date published: Oct 13, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 630

Citing Cases

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Employers Insurance

Philadelphia cites no authority in support of its other objection to the rule of ratable contribution. It is…

Casey v. Levine

Moreover, courts also require that the physician be a hospital employee before tolling the statute of…