§Why CasetextPricing

Darlene M. Lohnas, Respondent,v.Frank A. Luzi, Jr., M.D. et al., Appellants.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,140 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  2. Zuckerman v. City of N.Y.

    49 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 24,769 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Granting summary judgment as the city's arguments were considered speculation and this was "patently inadequate to establish the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial . . ."

  3. McDermott v. Torre

    56 N.Y.2d 399 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 440 times
    Borrowing rationale from medical malpractice cases

  4. Massie v. Crawford

    78 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 197 times
    Concluding that a physician's insertion of an IUD was for routine gynecological examinations and not therapy to correct her medical condition, thus the continuous treatment exception did not apply

  5. Rizk v. Cohen

    73 N.Y.2d 98 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 177 times
    Holding that plaintiff's claim for fraudulent concealment failed where plaintiff "relie[d] on the same act which forms the basis of his negligence claim — Dr. Cohen's alleged improper advice to plaintiff that there was nothing wrong" and, as such, "plaintiff's allegations do not establish that Dr. Cohen, acting with knowledge of prior malpractice, made subsequent misrepresentations in an attempt to conceal his earlier negligence"

  6. Gomez v. Katz

    61 A.D.3d 108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 97 times
    In Gomez v. Katz, the Second Department explained that the continuous treatment doctrine contains three principal elements, the first being that the plaintiff continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period.

  7. Duffy v. Horton Mem. Hosp

    66 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 179 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that, ordinarily, the statute of limitations would apply to claims asserted against newly added parties who have "been a complete stranger to the suit up to the point of the requested amendment," but acknowledging that permitting the amendment to relate back to that defendant would not be at odds with the policies underlying the statute of limitations where "within the statutory period, . . . defendant is fully aware that a claim is being made against him with respect to the transaction or occurrence involved in the suit"

  8. Richardson v. Orentreich

    64 N.Y.2d 896 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 170 times
    Applying continuing treatment doctrine to medical malpractice

  9. Allende v. N.Y. City Health Hosp. Corp.

    90 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 102 times
    Finding that “that both plaintiff and the doctors ... expected that she would return for further treatment”

  10. Barrella v. Richmond Memorial Hospital

    88 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982)   Cited 52 times
    In Barrella v Richmond Mem. Hosp. (88 A.D.2d 379, 384, supra), the court observed that the existence of temporal gaps between treatments is a factor to be considered in determining continuity and that "no existing rule defines with any precision what amount of time shorter than the period of limitations may intervene without a break in continuity".

  11. Section 214-A - Action for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice to be commenced within two years and six months; exceptions

    N.Y. CPLR 214-A   Cited 1,323 times
    Stating that "'continuous treatment' shall not include examinations undertaken at the request of the patient for the sole purpose of ascertaining the state of the patient's condition"