Arkin v. Tagliamonti, 65 N.Y.2d 985 (1985)

The continuous treatment doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases, does not extend to independent contractors or affiliated physicians where there is no agency or relevant relationship with the treating physician.

Summary

This case addresses whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to a pathologist and a hospital when a pathologist’s misreading of a biopsy led to a delayed cancer diagnosis. The Court of Appeals held that the continuous treatment of a patient by an attending physician does not extend the statute of limitations against an independent pathologist or a hospital based solely on the pathologist’s affiliation with the hospital when there is no agency relationship or ongoing treatment by the pathologist. The plaintiff’s failure to conduct timely discovery was also a factor in the court’s decision.

Facts

In 1977, the decedent underwent a biopsy at St. Francis Hospital performed by Dr. Mishrick. Dr. Tagliamonti, a pathologist at the Hospital, examined the tissue sample and reported no malignant cells. The decedent was later diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma in 1980 and a malignant melanoma in 1982, at the site of the original excision. A review of the 1977 biopsy in 1983 revealed malignant cells were present at the time of the original biopsy. A medical malpractice action was commenced in 1983 against Dr. Mishrick, Dr. Tagliamonti, and the Hospital.

Procedural History

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute of limitations had expired. Special Term denied the motions, finding a question of fact as to continuing treatment. The Appellate Division reversed as to Dr. Tagliamonti and the Hospital, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaints against them. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the continuous treatment doctrine extends the statute of limitations against a pathologist working in a hospital laboratory, based on the continuous treatment provided by the patient’s primary physician.
2. Whether the statute of limitations is extended against the hospital by imputing to it the continuous treatment of decedent by Dr. Mishrick by virtue of his status as a physician affiliated with the Hospital.
3. Whether summary judgment was premature due to the need for further discovery regarding the relationship between Dr. Tagliamonti and Dr. Mishrick.

Holding

1. No, because there was no evidence of an agency or other relevant relationship between Dr. Tagliamonti and Dr. Mishrick or of a continuing relation between Dr. Tagliamonti and the decedent.
2. No, because a physician’s affiliation with a hospital is not sufficient to impute continuous treatment for the purpose of extending the statute of limitations against the hospital.
3. No, because the plaintiffs failed to diligently pursue discovery to ascertain necessary facts pertaining to the relationship between the doctors before opposing summary judgment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in McDermott v. Torre, which held that continuous treatment by an attending physician does not extend the statute of limitations against an independent pathology laboratory for misreading a biopsy. The court rejected the argument that a different rule should apply simply because the pathologist worked in a hospital laboratory. The court emphasized the lack of