Summary
In Adams, defendant doctor referred plaintiff to a radiologist in order to have a mammography performed for diagnostic purposes.
Summary of this case from Keith v. SchulmanOpinion
September 22, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in concluding that the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the 2 1/2-year Statute of Limitations for claims sounding in medical malpractice ( see, CPLR 214-a). Here, the "continuing trust and confidence" which underlies the doctrine ( Richardson v Orentreich, 64 N.Y.2d 896, 898) did not end when the appellant referred the plaintiff to a radiologist in order to have a mammography performed for diagnostic purposes. The radiologist's findings were disclosed only to the appellant, who reviewed and evaluated the findings and informed the plaintiff of the results of the mammography approximately one month after the test. Under these circumstances, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff remained under the appellant's care and treatment while she was awaiting the mammography results ( see, Young v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 238 A.D.2d 174; Bartolo v. Monaco, 202 A.D.2d 53; Miller v. Rivard, 180 A.D.2d 331; cf., Robertson v. Bozza Karafiol, 242 A.D.2d 613 [decided herewith]).
Miller, J.P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.