Glamm v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 77 N.Y.2d 955 (1991)
The continuous treatment doctrine, which tolls the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases, applies only when the ongoing treatment is directly related to the alleged wrongful act or omission.
Summary
This case addresses whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action where the alleged malpractice (misreading genetic test results) occurred during, but was not directly related to, the plaintiff’s ongoing prenatal care. The New York Court of Appeals held that the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply because the misreading of the genetic test was not part of the continuous obstetric care. Therefore, the plaintiff’s action was time-barred. The decision highlights the limits of the continuous treatment doctrine, emphasizing the required nexus between the alleged malpractice and the ongoing treatment.
Facts
In January 1985, the plaintiff, who carries the genetic trait for sickle cell anemia, began receiving prenatal care at a hospital operated by the defendant. Aware of the risk of her child being born with sickle cell anemia, she arranged for the child’s father to be tested for the trait. On January 16, 1985, the father’s test results were incorrectly read as negative. Relying on this incorrect result, the plaintiff continued her pregnancy and gave birth on August 30, 1985. Two weeks later, the infant was diagnosed with sickle cell anemia.
Procedural History
On September 11, 1986, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action, seeking damages for the child’s medical expenses. The defendant moved to dismiss the action as untimely, arguing that the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations had expired. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division, dismissing the action.
Issue(s)
Whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action where the alleged malpractice (misreading genetic test results) occurred during, but was not directly related to, the plaintiff’s ongoing prenatal care.
Holding
No, because the misreading of the genetic test results was not performed in relation to the ongoing obstetric care received by the plaintiff. Therefore, the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply, and the action is time-barred.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the continuous treatment doctrine applies only when the course of treatment, including the wrongful act or omission, has run continuously and is related to the same original condition. Citing prior precedent, including Nykorchuck v Henriques, 78 NY2d 255, 258-259; McDermott v Torre, 56 NY2d 399, 405; and Borgia v City of New York, 12 NY2d 151, 155, the court emphasized the requirement of a direct relationship between the alleged malpractice and the ongoing treatment. The court stated, “Here, however, the alleged act of malpractice — the misreading of the father’s genetic test results — was simply not committed in relation to the ongoing obstetric care that plaintiff received.” Because the genetic testing was a discrete event not integral to the continuous prenatal care itself, the doctrine did not apply. This highlights that merely receiving continuous care is insufficient; the malpractice must be intertwined with that care. This case clarifies that the continuous treatment doctrine is not a blanket exception to the statute of limitations for all medical care provided over time. It serves to protect a patient who continues seeking treatment for the same condition from the same provider; it is not designed to cover unrelated negligent acts occurring during a period of otherwise proper treatment. The policy consideration is to avoid disrupting the physician-patient relationship where ongoing treatment is reasonably expected.