Parrott v. Rand
| Citation | 511 N.Y.S.2d 57,126 A.D.2d 621 |
| Parties | Lynn PARROTT, et al., Respondents, v. Joseph RAND, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 January 1987 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Meiselman, Farber, Stella & Eberz, P.C., Poughkeepsie (Terry D. Horner, of counsel), for appellant.
Plunkett & Jaffe, P.C., New York City (Kevin J. Plunkett and Joseph J. Ceccarelli, of counsel), for respondents.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, EIBER and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nicolai, J.) dated May 15, 1985, as denied his motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was time barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety, and the complaint is dismissed.
This medical malpractice action, commenced on April 7, 1983, derives from an alleged misdiagnosis of basal cell carcinoma on June 27, 1979, and, thus, would only be timely if the Statute of Limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine (see, CPLR 214-a). However, where as here, the patient is relying solely upon his continued use of a medication long after the last contact with the physician who prescribed it, we find the continuous treatment doctrine to be inapplicable (see, Bikowicz v. Nedco Pharmacy, 114 A.D.2d 708, 709, 494 N.Y.S.2d 541; Bernardo v. Ayerest Labs. Div. of Amer. Home Prods., 99 A.D.2d 430, 431, 470 N.Y.S.2d 395). Thus Special Term erred when it denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that questions of fact existed as to the last date of treatment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tullock v. Eck
...suggesting the contrary. See, Fleishman v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 94 N.J.Super. 90, 226 A.2d 843 (1967); Parrott v. Rand, 126 A.D.2d 621, 511 N.Y.S.2d 57 (2 Dept.1987); Bernardo v. Ayerest Laboratories, 99 A.D.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 395 (1 Dept.1984) and Millbaugh v. Gilmore, 30 Ohio St.2d......
-
Cooper v. Kaplan
...limitations is an outstanding prescription for the drug, with no evidence of an appointment for future treatment. Cf., Parrott v. Rand, 126 A.D.2d 621, 511 N.Y.S.2d 57, lv. denied, 69 N.Y.2d 611, 517 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 511 N.E.2d 85, with Richardson v. Orentreich, 97 A.D.2d 9, 468 N.Y.S.2d 336 ......
-
Hunsucker v. Rowntree
...v. Schmid Laboratories, Inc., 451 N.W.2d 133, 138-39 (N.D.1990); Froysland v. Altenburg, 439 N.W.2d 797 (N.D.1989); Parrott v. Rand, 126 A.D.2d 621, 511 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1987). As the Supreme Court of North Dakota has We do not believe that a continued prescription for medication eight years af......
-
Rowntree v. Hunsucker
...only while the patient was consulting the physician and taking the medication pursuant to the prescription. Id. In Parrott v. Rand, 126 A.D.2d 621, 511 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1987), suit was filed on June 27, 1983, for misdiagnosis of basal cell carcinoma "on June 27, 1979." The court said, "where as......