KATHRYN YOUNG, RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPS. CORP. ET AL.,
APPELLANTS.
91 N.Y.2d 291, 693 N.E.2d 196, 670 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1998).
February 17, 1998
1 No. 10
(98 NY Int. 0007)
Decided February 17, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Fay Ng, for appellants.
Martin Diennor, for respondent.
TITONE, J.:
We are asked on this appeal to determine whether the continuous
treatment doctrine applies to toll the ninety day notice of claim
period applicable to plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against
defendants for their alleged failure to timely diagnose and treat her
cancerous breast condition. Because plaintiff's allegations establish
that she was unaware of the need for further treatment of her breast
and that no course of treatment for that condition had otherwise been
established during the dispositive time period, the purpose of the
toll would not be served by its application here.
Plaintiff had been receiving treatment at the Sydenham Clinic, which
is a member of defendant New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation (HHC), for high blood pressure and arthritis. On March 29,
1990, she visited the clinic and complained of breast pain. Plaintiff
was examined by Dr. Min, who referred plaintiff to Harlem Hospital
also an HHC affiliate for a mammogram. Plaintiff's mammogram was
performed on April 18, 1990 and plaintiff was advised at that time
that she would be informed of the results. The mammogram report, which
was issued on April 25, 1990, revealed nodular densities in the left
breast and recommended a biopsy to rule out malignancy, or follow up
in three months. This report was forwarded to the Sydenham Clinic, but
the test results were not communicated to plaintiff.
Plaintiff returned to the Sydenham Clinic on June 18, 1990 and again
on September 29, 1990 for treatment of an unrelated condition.
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
We are asked on this appeal to determine whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to
Plaintiff had been receiving treatment at the Sydenham Clinic, which is a member of defendant
Plaintiff's mammogram was performed on April 18, 1990 and plaintiff was advised at that time
The mammogram report, which was issued on April 25, 1990, revealed nodular densities in the
Plaintiff was first advised of the abnormalities when she visited the Clinic on November 17,
Plaintiff asserted in opposition that the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the 90 day
Supreme Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
The court denied the motion to the extent that defendant sought dismissal "with respect to
The Appellate Division reversed, with two Justices dissenting.
We answer the certified question in the negative, and reverse and reinstate the order of
Allende v New York City Health and Hosps.
Corp., 90 NY2d 333, 337).
Thus, under the "continuous treatment doctrine," a statute of limitations or a notice of
The toll of the continuous treatment doctrine was created to enforce the view that a patient
In essence, plaintiff alleges nothing more than defendants' failure to timely diagnose and
|
