Practice point: There are triable issues as to whether there was continuous treatment where plaintiff’s expert opined that plaintiff was receiving treatment for gastroinestinal disorders which were symptomatic of the colon cancer defendant failed to diagnose.
Practitioners should note that there also will be questions regarding whether there was an expectation of further treatment when, following plaintiff’s last appointment, defendant instructed her to return.
Case: Harris v. Dizon, NY Slip Op 01856 (1st Dept. 2009)
The opinion is here.
Tomorrow’s issue: Attorneys’ fees.
