Appellate Developments in Medical Negligence

by Karen M. Rabenau

In the wake of Horton, the Court of Appeals again addressed the continuing course of treatment doctrine in Goins v. Puleo. Applying the more stringent standard set forth in Horton, the Court of Appeals held that "the continuous course of treatment doctrine tolls the running of the statute of limitations for the period between the original act and the ensuing discovery and correction of its consequences." ²⁰ The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment because the patient showed a continuous relationship with defendant physicians and subsequent treatment from defendants due, at least in part, to the original alleged negligence. Plaintiff’s claims were therefore not time-barred as a matter of law.

Even after Horton, the Court of Appeals continues to recognize that "[i]t is not necessary under [the continuing course of treatment doctrine] that the treatment rendered subsequent to the negligent act itself be negligent, if the physician continued to treat the patient for the particular disease or condition created by the original act of negligence." ²¹

2. Consuming Medication Prescribed by Physician is not Continuing Treatment

In Trexler v. Pollock, the Court of Appeals held that absent any other contact with the physician, consuming a prescription medication does not constitute a continuing course of treatment when the prescribed medication is not the cause of patient's illness. ²² In Trexler, an emergency room physician evaluated plaintiff and prescribed medication for her condition. Plaintiff never again saw this physician for treatment. Some ten days later, plaintiff was diagnosed with appendicitis by a second emergency room physician.

In her subsequent claim against the initial emergency room physician for failure to diagnose appendicitis, plaintiff did not claim that the prescribed medication caused her injury (appendicitis) but rather that it masked her symptoms. Rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the continuing course of treatment tolled the statute against the initial emergency room physician while plaintiff continued to take the improperly prescribed medication, the Court of Appeals explained that:

[t]he continuing course of treatment doctrine tolls the statute of limitations until the last act of the physician which gave rise to the cause of action. We decline to extend this doctrine to cover the time during which a patient consumes prescription medication, absent a showing of an ongoing relationship with the doctor and further treatment by the same doctor, or evidence that the medication itself was the cause of patient’s injury. ²³

 

<< Previous Next >>