Lettick v. Stoller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lettick v. Stoller

198 A.D.2d 168, 604 N.Y.S.2d 57

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 168 (Lettick v. Stoller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lettick v. Stoller, 198 A.D.2d 168, 604 N.Y.S.2d 57 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered December 4, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action brought to recover for medical malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Questions of fact exist regarding whether defendant’s treatment of the decedent, after his alleged negligent failure to diagnose the decedent’s prostate cancer in March 1982, constitutes "continuous treatment” (CPLR 214-a) for purposes of the relevant statute of limitations. Defendant filed forms with the decedent’s insurance carrier for payment expressly reciting that decedent’s visits with defendant in February through August 1985, were for "prostate cancer”. Moreover, the record indicates that decedent’s visits to defendant dramatically increased after his cancer diagnosis, and that defendant took an active role in establishing a course of treatment for decedent by drawing his blood for various diagnostic tests, taking x-rays and also referring him to other specialists.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered December 4, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action brought to recover for medical malpractice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Questions of fact exist regarding whether defendant’s treatment of the decedent, after his alleged negligent failure to diagnose the decedent’s prostate cancer in March 1982, constitutes "continuous treatment” (CPLR 214-a) for purposes of the relevant statute of limitations. Defendant filed forms with the decedent’s insurance carrier for payment expressly reciting that decedent’s visits with defendant in February through August 1985, were for "prostate cancer”. Moreover, the record indicates that decedent’s visits to defendant dramatically increased after his cancer diagnosis, and that defendant took an active role in establishing a course of treatment for decedent by drawing his blood for various diagnostic tests, taking x-rays and also referring him to other specialists.

We have considered all other claims and find them to be meritless. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 168, 604 N.Y.S.2d 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lettick-v-stoller-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack