Backer v Parsons
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice statute of limitations and the continuous treatment doctrine.
The lower court denied appellants' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint as time-barred.
The Appellate Division reversed the order denying summary judgment and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.
The action was commenced more than two years and six months after plaintiff's last treatment date, and plaintiff offered no evidence creating a triable issue that the continuous treatment doctrine applied.
Background
Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action arising from treatment for an arm injury. The record showed that plaintiff returned for a post-operative evaluation on March 15, 2021 and did not seek further treatment afterward. Although the medical chart from that visit stated that plaintiff should return in six weeks for a follow-up, there was no evidence that he ever scheduled or attended that appointment. Plaintiff commenced the action on September 25, 2023.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County denied appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by New York CPLR 214-a [medical malpractice statute of limitations requiring commencement within two years and six months of the alleged malpractice or last treatment in continuous treatment cases]. The Court held that defendants established their prima facie entitlement to dismissal by showing that the last treatment occurred on March 15, 2021 and that the action was not filed until September 25, 2023. Once that showing was made, plaintiff had the burden to raise a triable issue as to continuous treatment, but failed to do so. The Court also noted that the record did not indicate plaintiff submitted opposition papers.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a defendant in a medical malpractice case can satisfy its initial burden on a statute-of-limitations defense by identifying the plaintiff's last actual treatment date. A mere notation in a medical chart recommending a future follow-up visit is not enough to invoke the continuous treatment doctrine absent evidence that the patient actually sought or obtained additional treatment for the same condition.
For continuous treatment to toll the limitations period, there must be evidence of actual ongoing treatment or return visits for the same condition; an unkept recommendation to follow up does not extend the filing deadline.