Cox v. Kingsboro Medical Group, 88 N.Y.2d 904 (1996)

The continuous treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations in a medical malpractice action only when both the physician and patient explicitly anticipate further treatment related to the original condition, typically manifested by a scheduled appointment in the near future.

Summary

In this medical malpractice case, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that both he and his doctor explicitly anticipated further treatment, as required for the doctrine to apply. The plaintiff’s amorphous expectation of future diagnostic testing was insufficient. Additionally, the Court found no basis to impute treatment from one medical group to another based solely on a referral and a vague “consulting” relationship, absent evidence demonstrating a relevant connection between the groups.

Facts

Winston Cox received treatment from Dr. Levowitz, a member of Brookdale Surgical Group, after being referred by a physician at Kingsboro Medical Group, Cox’s primary care provider. Cox later claimed that Dr. Levowitz committed medical malpractice. Cox argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the continuous treatment doctrine because he expected further diagnostic testing and because of the relationship between Kingsboro and Brookdale.

Procedural History

Cox filed a medical malpractice suit. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The lower court granted the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the continuous treatment doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations when the patient has an amorphous expectation of future treatment, but no explicit agreement with the physician for such treatment?

2. Whether treatment rendered by one medical group can be imputed to a physician in another medical group based solely on a referral and a “consulting” relationship for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations under the continuous treatment doctrine?

Holding

1. No, because the continuous treatment doctrine requires explicit anticipation of further treatment by both the physician and the patient, manifested by a regularly scheduled appointment or similar indication.

2. No, because a mere referral and vague “consulting” relationship, without further evidence demonstrating a relevant connection between the medical groups, is insufficient to impute treatment for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of demonstrating a triable issue of fact regarding continuous treatment. The Court reiterated the established standard for continuous treatment, stating that it exists only “when further treatment is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient as manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future, agreed upon during that last visit, in conformance with the periodic appointments which characterized the treatment in the immediate past” (quoting Richardson v. Orentreich, 64 N.Y.2d 896, 898-899). The Court found that Cox only possessed an “amorphous expectation” of future testing, which did not satisfy the explicit anticipation requirement. Furthermore, the court declined to impute treatment from Kingsboro to Levowitz based on the referral and consulting relationship. It emphasized the lack of evidence demonstrating a relevant relationship between the two groups sufficient to justify imputation. The Court stated that the record did not contain any evidence demonstrating a relevant relationship between Kingsboro and Brookdale sufficient to impute treatment by Kingsboro physicians to Levowitz.