1 No. 71
Jermaine Worrell Plummer, &c., et al.,
Respondents,
v.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 73
June 11, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Grace Goodman, for appellant.
Matthew Gaier, for respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J.:
On this appeal, plaintiffs ask this Court to extend the continuous
treatment doctrine from a single physician or related physicians to
continuous treatment by an institution. Because the course of the
infant's treatment was not truly continuous, we reverse without
reaching the question of whether continuous treatment by an
institution is a cognizable theory excusing the untimely filing of a
notice of claim.
Infant plaintiff was born on May 21, 1985 at North Central Bronx
Hospital (North Central), one of the hospitals owned and operated by
defendant Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Medical records
indicate plaintiff was essentially "born lifeless," and that at birth,
he suffered from respiratory failure, which allegedly caused brain
damage affecting learning and speech development, and Erb's Palsy in
his left arm. Plaintiff was intubated and brought to the special care
nursery/neonatal intensive care unit where he remained throughout his
ten-day hospitalization.
After plaintiff's discharge, he was treated by three different
clinics: (a) Montefiore Hospital Medical Center (Montefiore), a
facility unrelated to North Central, for his cardiac condition; (b)
North Central's Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine Clinic for his Erb's
Palsy; and (c) North Central's Pediatric Clinic for routine health
care. In September 1988, plaintiff's mother told the North Central
Pediatric Clinic that she intended to relocate to Miami, Florida. The
SNIPPETS:
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Appellant.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
plaintiffs ask this Court to extend the continuous treatment doctrine from a single physician
Because the course of the infant's treatment was not truly continuous, we reverse without
Infant plaintiff was born on May 21, 1985 at North Central Bronx Hospital, one of the
Medical records indicate plaintiff was essentially "born lifeless," and that at birth, he
Plaintiff was intubated and brought to the special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit
After plaintiff's discharge, he was treated by three different clinics: Montefiore Hospital
The clinic advised plaintiff's mother to seek medical attention from Miami Children's
On December 16, 1988, however, before moving to Miami, plaintiff visited the North Central
After failing to appear for a speech evaluation lesson on May 14, 1990, plaintiff visited
Plaintiff failed to appear for a scheduled appointment in August 1990 and was not seen at
On October 18, 1990, plaintiffs filed a notice of claim on behalf of the infant plaintiff and
Plaintiffs served the complaint on November 13, 1991, more specifically directing their
concluding that the limitations period could be extended under the continuous treatment
All actions sounding in medical malpractice brought against HHC or North Central are subject
"The `continuing trust and confidence' which underlies the `continuous treatment doctrine' *
iate past * * *.
medical records indicate that plaintiffs intended to relocate to Florida in September 1998
Significantly, the mother did not indicate at that time that she intended her child to
|
