New York Law Review

Rockefeller v. Manhattan Medical Group, 74 N.Y.2d 212 (1989): Foreign Object Exception to Medical Malpractice Statute of Limitations

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Rockefeller v. Manhattan Medical Group, 74 N.Y.2d 212 (1989)

A “fixation device” intentionally implanted for treatment does not become a “foreign object” triggering a later discovery accrual date for the statute of limitations simply because a physician negligently fails to remove it.

Summary

Rockefeller sued Manhattan Medical Group, alleging negligence for failing to remove an IUD. The IUD was inserted in 1980 and Rockefeller consulted Dr. Klein to remove it in 1982. Klein couldn’t locate it and told Rockefeller she could try to conceive. Unsuccessful and experiencing bleeding, Rockefeller consulted Dr. Radney in 1986, who found the IUD embedded in her uterus. Rockefeller sued Klein and Manhattan Medical Group in 1987. The court addressed whether the IUD became a “foreign object” when Klein failed to remove it, thus triggering a later discovery accrual date for the statute of limitations. The court held that it did not, as the IUD was initially placed intentionally as a fixation device, and the suit was time-barred.

Facts

  • In 1980, Rockefeller had an IUD inserted for birth control.
  • In 1982, she consulted Dr. Klein to remove the IUD to conceive.
  • Klein couldn’t locate the IUD and ordered X-rays, which didn’t reveal it.
  • Klein told Rockefeller she could attempt to conceive without further procedures.
  • Rockefeller’s attempts to conceive were unsuccessful and she experienced heavy bleeding by 1986.
  • Dr. Radney found the IUD embedded in her uterus via sonogram.
  • Rockefeller required surgery to remove the IUD.

Procedural History

  • Rockefeller sued Klein and Manhattan Medical Group in February 1987, more than four years after her last consultation with Klein.
  • Defendants raised the 2.5-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214-a.
  • Rockefeller argued the “foreign object” exception applied.
  • Supreme Court rejected this argument and dismissed the complaint.
  • The Appellate Division affirmed.
  • Rockefeller appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an IUD, initially implanted as a “fixation device,” transforms into a “foreign object” under CPLR 214-a when a physician, retained to remove it, negligently fails to do so, thus triggering a later discovery rule for the statute of limitations.

Holding

No, because the IUD was initially a “fixation device” deliberately implanted for a specific medical purpose, and the “foreign object” exception should not be broadened to apply to negligent failures to detect or remove such devices.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that CPLR 214-a specifically excludes fixation devices from the definition of “foreign object”. The court reasoned that the IUD was initially placed deliberately as a contraceptive device, thus classifying it as a “fixation device” at the outset. The court rejected the argument that the IUD transformed into a “foreign object” when the defendants failed to remove it, stating that the “foreign object” exception was tailored to cases where the claim arises from the negligent implantation of the object itself, not from a subsequent negligent omission related to a previously inserted device. The court stated the gist of Rockefeller’s claim involved a negligent failure to detect the continued presence of the device which is most logically classified as misdiagnosis. This situation does not fall under the “foreign object” discovery rule. The court highlighted the factors outlined in Flanagan v. Mount Eden Gen. Hosp., stating that this case rests on the defendant’s alleged negligence in exercising “professional diagnostic judgment or discretion.” Further, claims based on injuries arising from a failure to diagnose involves a more problematic chain of causation than injuries arising from the negligent implantation of a surgical instrument or other “foreign object.” Additionally, these actions raise questions as to credibility, requiring the fact finder to assess conflicting evidence. To apply the “foreign object” exception here would be a giant step toward “bringing virtually all medical malpractice cases under the discovery rule.” The court found the claim time-barred since the limitations period began when Klein allegedly told Rockefeller the IUD was no longer in her body.

More ARTICLES