Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized the continuing treatment doctrine for medical malpractice claims under Massachusetts law. It held that the limitations period generally does not begin while the patient continues receiving treatment from the defendant physician for the same or a related condition, but that the exception ends when the patient learns that the physician's negligence caused the injury or when the physician's treatment role ends. The court affirmed judgment for the defendant because the claim was untimely.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Massachusetts should recognize a continuing-treatment exception to the discovery rule for medical-malpractice claims.
- If recognized, whether the exception ends when the patient obtains actual knowledge that the treating physician's negligence caused the injury.
- Whether continuing treatment by physicians who were formerly part of the same treatment team, but who were not supervised, advised, or consulted by the defendant physician, extends the exception.
- Whether the plaintiffs' claim was timely under the statute of limitations.
Holdings
- Massachusetts recognizes a continuing-treatment exception: generally, the statute of limitations for a medical-malpractice claim does not begin to run while the plaintiff and the allegedly negligent physician maintain a doctor-patient relationship and the plaintiff continues receiving treatment from that physician for the same or a related condition.
- The continuing-treatment exception terminates when the patient, or the parent or guardian of a minor patient, obtains actual knowledge that the physician's negligence caused the injury.
- The continuing-treatment doctrine applies when the allegedly negligent physician continues to supervise, advise, or consult with other physicians treating the patient for the same or a related injury. It does not apply merely because the defendant was formerly part of the same treatment team, where the defendant no longer has a role in treatment.
- The action was untimely because the jury found that the plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known of the harm more than three years before filing suit, and Rosenthal's participation in William's treatment ended more than three years before the action was commenced.
Key quotations
“We now recognize the doctrine under Massachusetts law and hold that the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim generally does not begin to run while the plaintiff and the defendant physician continue to have a doctor-patient relationship and the plaintiff continues to receive treatment from the physician for the same or a related condition.” (475 Mass. at 369)
“Thus, we conclude that the continuing treatment exception to the discovery rule terminates only when the plaintiff has actual knowledge that his or her treating physician's negligence has caused the patient's appreciable harm, because it is only then that there can no longer be the kind of "innocent reliance" that the continuing treatment doctrine seeks to protect.” (475 Mass. at 384)
“Because, having balanced the competing considerations, we are unwilling to apply the continuing treatment doctrine to the plaintiff's continued treatment by a "treatment team" that once included the defendant, the doctrine does not apply in this case after December, 2005.” (475 Mass. at 388)
Factual background
William Parr underwent radio-frequency ablation of a desmoid tumor in his leg on November 4, 2005, performed by Dr. Daniel Rosenthal. During the procedure, William suffered a burn that caused nerve damage, infection, and ultimately below-knee and above-knee amputations. Rosenthal continued treating William only through his hospitalization and rehabilitation stay, ending by December 2005; other physicians later treated the injury. The Parrs filed suit on March 9, 2009, and the jury found that they knew or reasonably should have known before March 6, 2006, that William had been harmed by Rosenthal's conduct.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs filed a medical-malpractice action in the Superior Court on March 9, 2009. After a jury found that they knew or reasonably should have known of the injury more than three years before suit, judgment entered for the defendant; the trial judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. The Appeals Court reversed and ordered a new trial, recognizing a continuing-treatment doctrine. The Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and affirmed the judgment for the defendant and the denial of a new trial.