Under New York law, medical malpractice actions must be filed within two and a half years of the last date of treatment or they may be barred as untimely. Depending on the nature of the relationship between the patient and treatment provider, however, the last date of treatment may be up for debate.
Recently, the Supreme Court of New York held that an issue of fact existed as to whether an injured party’s treatment with a medical practice could be imputed to the surgeon that allegedly caused her harm. If you suffered injuries or illness due to insufficient medical care, it is in your best interest to consult a seasoned Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to determine whether you may be able to seek compensation from one or more of the medical providers that caused you harm.
Reportedly, on March 18, 2011, the plaintiff underwent a bilateral mastectomy with a first surgeon and immediately after underwent a bilateral breast reconstruction with a second surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently contracted a MRSA infection at the surgical site, and receive treatment for the infection from the second surgeon until November 14, 2011. She also continued to receive treatment from the first surgeon at the practice that employed both surgeons until October 2012. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against both surgeons. The second surgeon filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff’s claims against her were barred by the two and a half year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions in New York. The court denied the motion and the second surgeon appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed.
Court Finds Issue of Fact as to When the Treatment Ended
A defendant who argues a claim must be dismissed due to the statute of limitations must show prima facie evidence that the time in which the plaintiff was permitted to file a lawsuit has passed. Here, the court found that the defendant had presented prima facie evidence that more than two and a half years had passed from the time she last treated the patient to when the plaintiff filed her lawsuit. The court nonetheless found an issue of fact existed as to when the treatment ended, however. The court noted that the plaintiff produced evidence showing that she was a patient of the practice, rather than of the second surgeon as an individual. Thus, the court found that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether her continued postoperative treatment with the practice tolled the statute of limitations until her treatment at the practice ended. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court’s denial of the second surgeon’s motion for summary judgment.
Meet with a Trusted Syracuse Medical Malpractice Attorney
If you suffered harm due to inadequate medical care, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Syracuse medical malpractice attorney as soon as possible to analyze your options for seeking compensation from the responsible party. The experienced medical malpractice attorneys of DeFrancisco & Falgiatano represent individuals who suffered harm due to the inadequate care of medical professionals. We have the knowledge and experience needed to navigate the complexities of medical malpractice cases, and will vigorously pursue any damages you may be owed. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or via our online form to set up a free and confidential meeting.
More Blog Posts:
Complications Arising from Untreated Jaundice in New York Newborns, Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, September 25, 2018
Medical Malpractice Related to COPD in Syracuse, Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, August 21, 2018
Research Confirms Fear of Lawsuits Results in Extra Medical Tests, Syracuse Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog, August 14, 2018