Opinion

Fonda v. Paulsen

  • 46 A.D.2d 540
  • 363 N.Y.S.2d 841
  • 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8536
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Feb 6, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Sweeney
On the bench
Greenblott, Sweeney
Cited by
55 cases

when evidence would support finding that plaintiff sought ongoing treatment for lesion that was later diagnosed as cancerous, notwithstanding pathologist’s initial report that it was not cancerous, whether continuous treatment doctrine applied to pathologist was question of fact for jury

How later courts described this case

  • when evidence would support finding that plaintiff sought ongoing treatment for lesion that was later diagnosed as cancerous, notwithstanding pathologist’s initial report that it was not cancerous, whether continuous treatment doctrine applied to pathologist was question of fact for jury

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Weinblatt v. Lydia Hall Hospital, 105 A.D.2d 781 (1984)

    Fonda v Paulsen (46 AD2d 540), to the extent it survives McDermott v Torre (supra), is plainly distinguishable.
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkNov 19, 1984Read it
  • Distinguished by McDermott v. Torre, 82 A.D.2d 152 (1981)

    The court found that Fonda (supra) was distinguishable and, in any event, should not be followed, and held that the Statute of Limitations was a bar to the action against Laboratories.
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkJul 16, 1981Read it

The opinion

Sweeney, J.

(dissenting). I am unable to agree with the

result arrived at by the majority and, therefore, vote to affirm.

The alleged malpractice of Dr. Oram occurred in May, 1969 when he analyzed excised tissue removed from plaintiff and found it benign. He performed a similar analysis in January, 1972 and found that tissue to be cancerous. On these facts the Statute of Limitations had clearly run and the action barred as against him. With regard to the other two doctors, the facts *546 developed in this record do not bring the acts of alleged malpractice within the doctrine of continuous treatment as enunciated in Borgia. Consequently, Special Term properly granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Heklihy, P. J., and Main, J., concur with Greenblott, J.; Sweeney and Reynolds,' JJ., dissent and vote to affirm in an opinion by Sweeney, J.

Order reversed, on the law, and motions denied, with costs.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.