85 N.Y.2d 733 (1995)
The continuous treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations in medical malpractice cases only when there is an established, ongoing course of treatment related to the original condition; mere monitoring or a continuing relationship is insufficient.
Summary
Sean Ganess, born with Erb’s palsy, sued the City of New York for alleged medical malpractice during his birth. He claimed the continuous treatment doctrine should toll the statute of limitations, as he received follow-up care at the hospital’s pediatric clinic for 11 years. The Court of Appeals held that Ganess failed to demonstrate continuous treatment throughout the entire period. Vague assertions of yearly visits without specific dates or treatment details were insufficient to invoke the doctrine. The court affirmed the dismissal of the case, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence of ongoing, related treatment to justify tolling the statute of limitations.
Facts
Sean Ganess was born in 1973 with Erb’s palsy, affecting his left shoulder and arm. He received treatment at Elmhurst General Hospital’s Pediatric Neuromuscular Rehabilitation Clinic from shortly after birth. Doctors explained to his parents when he was 3 1/2 years old that his condition was likely permanent. On May 18, 1984, almost 11 years after his birth, Ganess filed a notice of claim against the City of New York, alleging negligence during his delivery.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a notice of claim nearly 11 years after the alleged malpractice. The lower courts ruled against the plaintiff, finding the claim time-barred. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case to determine whether the continuous treatment doctrine applied to toll the statute of limitations, allowing the claim to proceed despite the late filing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice case when the plaintiff alleges ongoing monitoring and treatment for a condition stemming from the initial negligent act, but fails to provide concrete evidence of treatment throughout the entire period.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate a continuous course of treatment related to the original condition for the entire period claimed. The plaintiff’s vague assertions of yearly visits were insufficient to rebut the evidence showing a lapse in treatment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the continuous treatment doctrine requires a continuous course of treatment related to the original condition. “[T]he time in which a plaintiff must bring an action alleging malpractice is stayed `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 noted that neither a continuing relationship nor a continuing diagnosis is sufficient. While acknowledging that individuals with chronic conditions and those being monitored are not necessarily excluded from the doctrine’s protection, the court found that Ganess failed to prove continuous treatment for the entire 11-year period. The last documented treatment was in August 1983, and the father’s affidavit lacked specific details about any treatment after that date. The court held that the conclusory assertion of continuous treatment was insufficient to establish entitlement to the doctrine. Judge Titone, in a concurring opinion, raised concerns about whether treatment by a different medical specialty (neurology versus obstetrics) could satisfy the continuous treatment doctrine, but the court did not address this issue as it was not raised by the defendants.