Prego v. City of New York, 93 N.Y.2d 834 (1999)
The statute of limitations for a toxic tort claim begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based, regardless of whether they know the precise cause.
Summary
Plaintiff, a machine grinder, developed respiratory issues in 1989 after years of exposure to chemical coolants. He sought medical treatment, filed a worker’s compensation claim, and reported the coolant as the cause. He filed suit in 1993. The court addressed whether the statute of limitations, under CPLR 214-c, began when the plaintiff first experienced symptoms and attributed them to the coolant, or later when a specific diagnosis identified other substances. The Court of Appeals held the claim was untimely, reiterating that the limitations period starts when the plaintiff discovers the primary condition, not necessarily the exact cause.
Facts
Plaintiff worked as a machine grinder for 27 years, using machines with chemical and petroleum products, including a coolant.
In August 1989, plaintiff developed respiratory symptoms, including breathing difficulty, throat and chest pains, and coughing.
Over a 2 1/2-month period, plaintiff repeatedly visited a hospital and health center, where doctors indicated coolant exposure caused his illness.
On October 30, 1989, plaintiff told a nurse that “the coolant is killing me.”
Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim and Employer’s Report of Injury/Illness forms, stating coolant exposure was at fault.
Procedural History
Plaintiff commenced an action on October 29, 1993.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the complaint was untimely under CPLR 214-c.
Supreme Court denied summary judgment.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the claim was untimely.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the statute of limitations for a toxic tort claim begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the primary condition, or when the plaintiff discovers the specific non-biological cause of the injury.
Holding
Yes, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the primary condition because all that is necessary to start the limitations period is that plaintiff be aware of the primary condition for which damages are sought.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on its prior decision in Matter of New York County DES Litig., 89 N.Y.2d 506, which established that the three-year limitations period for latent effects of toxic exposure begins “when the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based” (id. at 509).
The Court rejected the argument that the plaintiff must also discover the non-biological cause of the injury (id. at 514).
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s actions in 1989 (hospital visits, worker’s compensation claim, reports to employer) showed he had discovered the injury underlying his claims at that time. The court emphasized the plaintiff’s own statement: “the coolant is killing me.”
The Court dismissed the significance of the later diagnosis in 1991 identifying other substances, as it was sufficient that the plaintiff was aware of the primary condition for which damages are sought.
The court reasoned that requiring knowledge of the precise cause would unduly extend the statute of limitations and undermine its purpose of promoting timely resolution of claims. As the court stated, “All that is necessary to start the limitations period is that plaintiff be aware of the primary condition for which damages are sought.”