Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statutesummary judgmentmalpracticestatute of limitations
plaintiffdefendantstatutetestimonymotionmalpracticestatute of limitations

Related Cases

Deen v. Egleston, 597 F.3d 1223, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 571
View Case »
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash.2d 91, 26 P.3d 257
View Case »
Chambers v. Conaway, 883 S.W.2d 156, 62 USLW 2317
View Case »
Wendland v. Sparks, 574 N.W.2d 327
View Case »
Robins v. Katz, 151 Mich.App. 802, 391 N.W.2d 495
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Watkins v. Fromm, 108 A.D.2d 233, 488 N.Y.S.2d 768

Facts

Robert L. Watkins began treatment with a medical group in January 1973, where he was diagnosed with a potential brain tumor. After undergoing surgery that revealed no tumor, he experienced complications and continued treatment from the group until 1978. Drs. Fromm and Sarno, who performed the surgery, left the group in 1974, but Watkins continued to receive care from other members of the group. The malpractice claims were based on the misdiagnosis and the surgery performed by the departing doctors.

The record shows further that Dr. Fromm never personally treated Mr. Watkins after his discharge from the hospital on June 26, 1973 and that Dr. Sarno last participated in the treatment of Mr. Watkins on January 25, 1974.

Issue

Whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action against physicians who have left a medical group, when the patient continues to receive treatment from other members of the group for the same condition.

The basis for their motion was the alleged termination in 1974 of the relationship of each of the movants with the other individual defendants who were former partners of defendant Fromm and former employers of defendant Sarno.

Rule

The continuous treatment doctrine allows the statute of limitations to be tolled if the patient continues to receive treatment for the same condition from a medical group, even after some physicians have left the group.

We hold that the continuous treatment doctrine is applicable to toll the Statute of Limitations for a malpractice action against physicians alleged to have committed malpractice who have terminated their relationship with a group medical practice if it be established that the plaintiff was considered to be a patient of the group and was treated by the group, as such, and remained under the care of physicians in the group for the same injury, illness or condition after the departure from that practice of the physicians who were primarily, if not solely, responsible for the alleged wrongful acts and omissions.

Analysis

The court determined that Watkins was treated as a patient of the entire medical group, not just individual doctors. The continuity of treatment from the remaining physicians in the group for the same condition after the departure of Drs. Fromm and Sarno created a factual issue regarding the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine. This meant that the statute of limitations could potentially be tolled until Watkins' treatment concluded in 1978.

The testimony contained in the record before us suggests that the alleged misdiagnosis of Mr. Watkins' condition (i.e., that he was suffering from a brain tumor when he was not) which led to the surgery performed by Drs. Fromm and Sarno, was arrived at jointly by all of the defendants in the group practice, some of whom concededly continued to treat Mr. Watkins until July, 1978.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that there was a question of fact regarding the application of the continuous treatment doctrine, thus precluding summary judgment for the departing physicians.

Accordingly, the order of Special Term should be affirmed.

Who won?

Robert L. Watkins prevailed in the case as the court found that the continuous treatment doctrine could apply, allowing his claims to proceed despite the departure of the physicians.

We agree. But, before any determination on the applicability of the doctrine can be made, at the very least the precise nature of the care and treatment rendered by the codefendants from 1975 to 1978 must be explored.

You must be