Rhodes v Dilena
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice involving the alleged negligent failure to timely diagnose and treat breast cancer.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted summary judgment dismissing claims based on negligent failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor allegedly committed before December 11, 2015, and dismissed the complaint against Robert M. Nadell as time-barred.
The Appellate Division reversed those portions of the order and denied summary judgment on the time-barred defenses.
The claims were revived by L 2018, ch 1 [New York 2018 law creating a discovery rule for negligent failure to diagnose cancer or a malignant tumor and reviving certain recent time-barred claims]. Although the failure-to-diagnose claims accrued on October 23, 2014, they became time-barred in April 2017, which fell within the statute's 10-month revival window before January 31, 2018, and the action was filed on June 11, 2018, before the July 31, 2018 revival deadline.
Background
Tara Rhodes and her husband commenced this action on June 11, 2018, alleging that Robert M. Nadell and Matthew Dilena failed to timely diagnose and treat Rhodes's breast cancer. The alleged malpractice included a failure on October 23, 2014, to advise her to undergo additional testing such as a mammogram. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that claims arising before December 11, 2015, and the claims against Nadell were untimely.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the cancer failure-to-diagnose claims allegedly committed prior to December 11, 2015, and dismissing the complaint against Robert M. Nadell as time-barred.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that the dismissed claims qualified for revival under L 2018, ch 1, § 4. The court explained that the causes of action became time-barred in April 2017, which was within 10 months before the statute's January 31, 2018 effective date, and that the plaintiffs filed suit by June 11, 2018, within the six-month revival period ending July 31, 2018. It therefore reversed the order insofar as appealed from and denied those branches of the defendants' summary judgment motion.
Legal Significance
The decision confirms that New York's 2018 cancer misdiagnosis statute can revive otherwise untimely medical malpractice claims where the claim became time-barred on or after March 31, 2017, and suit was filed by July 31, 2018. It applies even when the underlying alleged malpractice occurred before the statute's enactment, so long as the claim fits the specific revival window.
A cancer misdiagnosis claim that would otherwise be untimely may still proceed if it falls within the limited revival period created by New York's 2018 legislation, and courts must apply that revival provision when the timing requirements are met.