64 N.Y.2d 896 (1985)
The continuous treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient, as manifested in a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future.
Summary
This case addresses the continuous treatment doctrine in medical malpractice, specifically focusing on whether a scheduled appointment extends the period of continuous treatment for statute of limitations purposes. The Court of Appeals held that the continuous treatment doctrine applies when a patient has a scheduled follow-up appointment, even if the patient misses that appointment, because the intention of continued care exists. The court reasoned that requiring a patient to interrupt corrective efforts between scheduled appointments would be absurd.
Facts
Plaintiff, Richardson, received medical treatment from Defendant, Dr. Orentreich, from January 1973 through October 8, 1974. During the October visit, a follow-up appointment was scheduled for December 4, 1974. Richardson did not attend the December appointment and had no further contact with Orentreich. Richardson filed a medical malpractice suit on November 30, 1977, alleging injuries from treatment received between August 1973 and December 1974. Orentreich argued that the statute of limitations had expired because the last actual treatment was on October 8, 1974, more than three years prior to the suit.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, Special Term, denied Orentreich’s motion for summary judgment, finding unresolved issues regarding the termination of treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment, holding that no factual questions existed to sustain the statute of limitations defense, given the scheduled follow-up appointment.
Issue(s)
Whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case when a follow-up appointment is scheduled, but not kept, by the patient.
Holding
Yes, because the “continuing trust and confidence” between doctor and patient extends to the scheduled appointment, indicating an intention for ongoing care, even if the patient does not attend.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run until the continuous course of treatment ends, citing Borgia v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.2d 151, 155. The court reasoned that the “continuous treatment doctrine” hinges on the “continuing trust and confidence” between the physician and patient, which extends beyond the last physical visit. The court stated that “It would be absurd to require a wronged patient to interrupt corrective efforts by deeming treatment to be considered terminated in between scheduled appointments.” Because a follow-up appointment was scheduled for December 4, 1974, there was a clear expectation and intention of continued treatment until at least that date. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the patient independently decides to terminate the relationship or where no future treatment is contemplated. The mere fact that the patient missed the appointment does not automatically terminate the continuous course of treatment when the appointment itself signifies the ongoing nature of the physician’s care. The court emphasized that Orentreich didn’t raise any factual issues suggesting any action that ended the course of care between the last appointment and the cancelled one.