Doyle v. City of New York, 48 N.Y.2d 950 (1979)

The continuous treatment doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases, does not apply to routine pediatric examinations where the patient appears to be in perfect health.

Summary

This case addresses whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to an infant’s routine pediatric examinations to extend the time to file a notice of claim against the City of New York. The Court of Appeals held that the doctrine was inapplicable because the infant’s visits were for routine checkups and not related to any specific condition or complaint. Therefore, the application to file a late notice of claim was denied because it was not made within the statutory period of one year after the event upon which the claim was based.

Facts

An infant claimant sought to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York. The claim stemmed from an unspecified event. The infant had visited the hospital for routine pediatric examinations. The claimant argued that these visits constituted “continuous treatment,” which should toll the statutory period for filing a notice of claim.

Procedural History

The claimant applied for leave to file a late notice of claim. The lower court granted the application. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The City of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the infant’s routine pediatric examinations constitute “continuous treatment” for the purpose of tolling the one-year statutory period for filing a late notice of claim against a municipality under General Municipal Law § 50-e.

Holding

1. No, because the continuous treatment doctrine applies only when the course of treatment is related to the same original condition or complaint, and the infant’s visits were for routine examinations while appearing in perfect health.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the continuous treatment doctrine was inapplicable in this case. The court relied on the principle established in Borgia v. City of New York, stating that the doctrine applies only “when the course of treatment which includes the wrongful acts or omissions has run continuously and is related to the same original condition or complaint.” The court distinguished the case from situations involving ongoing treatment for a specific ailment. Here, the infant’s visits were “merely for routine pediatric examinations, the infant appearing during this period to be in perfect health.” Citing Davis v. City of New York, the court concluded that the continuous treatment doctrine should not be applied in such circumstances. The court emphasized that extending the doctrine to cover routine checkups would broaden its scope beyond its intended purpose, which is to protect patients who continue under a doctor’s care for a specific condition. This decision reinforces the importance of timely filing notices of claim against municipalities and clarifies the limited scope of the continuous treatment doctrine.