Background
Paul Backer brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Bradford Parsons and The Mount Sinai Hospital arising out of treatment of an arm injury. The undisputed timeline: Backer’s last appointment with Dr. Parsons was on March 15, 2021, described as a post-operative evaluation. The medical chart from that visit contained a note that Backer was to “come back for a follow-up visit in six weeks.” Backer never scheduled or attended that follow-up. He commenced the malpractice action on September 25, 2023 — more than two years and six months after the March 2021 visit.
Under CPLR § 214-a, medical malpractice actions must be commenced within two years and six months of the act, omission, or failure giving rise to the claim. Dr. Parsons and Mount Sinai moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds. Supreme Court denied the motion. The First Department reversed and ordered judgment for defendants.
The Court’s Holding
Defendants established their prima facie case by showing that the action was filed more than two years and six months after Backer’s last documented treatment. The burden then shifted to Backer to “demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact with respect to application of the continuous treatment doctrine” — New York’s exception that tolls the malpractice limitations period when the patient is continuously treated by the same physician for the same condition.
Backer produced nothing in opposition. The court noted that the record contained no indication he had even submitted opposition papers. More substantively, the court found no evidence in the record that Backer sought or received any additional treatment after March 15, 2021. The six-week follow-up note in his chart — the only hook that might have extended the period — did not save the claim. The note reflected a recommendation, not a scheduled appointment; and the record contained no evidence that Backer ever booked or attended such an appointment. An unscheduled, unattended recommended return visit does not constitute “continuous treatment” under the doctrine, because the patient, not the doctor, controls whether treatment continues after a recommendation is made.
Key Takeaways
- The continuous treatment doctrine requires evidence that the patient actually continued to seek or receive treatment for the same condition — a note in the chart recommending a future visit that the patient never scheduled does not toll the statute of limitations.
- A medical malpractice plaintiff who submits nothing in opposition to a facially sufficient statute-of-limitations motion faces dismissal; the burden-shifting framework under CPLR § 214-a requires affirmative proof of a toll, not just silence.
- Practitioners should review the client’s complete treatment records before filing; the limitations clock begins running on the last date of actual treatment, not on the last date treatment was recommended.
Why It Matters
Medical malpractice litigants in New York face one of the shortest limitations periods in civil litigation — two and a half years under CPLR § 214-a. The continuous treatment doctrine is the primary vehicle for extending that period, but as this case demonstrates, it requires actual ongoing care, not merely a physician’s hope that the patient will return. For plaintiffs’ attorneys: the intake interview must include a complete chronological history of treatment, and any gap of more than a few months after the alleged negligent act should trigger an immediate limitations analysis. Here, the plaintiff apparently had no follow-up and waited until nearly the last day of the period — and then missed it. For defense counsel: these cases are often winnable at the pleading or summary judgment stage once the chart confirms no further treatment; identify the timeline early and move promptly.