MALPRACTICE – CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE

Grey v. Stamford Health Sys., No. 17679 (Conn. June 26, 2007)

The Supreme Court of Connecticut, in affirming the trial court, held that the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations on a patient's malpractice action. The patient brought her medical malpractice action against the hospital and a radiologist, alleging that the radiologist had negligently interpreted a mammogram, which delayed the patient's breast cancer diagnosis. Though the radiologist had noted a suspicious lesion in the plaintiff's left breast and had ordered follow-up mammograms, the radiologist eventually ordered the patient to return to a regular annual mammogram schedule after he interpreted her final follow-up test as normal. The trial court dismissed the patient's claim based on the statute of limitations; however, the patient argued that her claim was not time-barred based on the continuous treatment doctrine.

To establish the continuous treatment doctrine for purposes of tolling the statute of limitation in a malpractice action, the patient must prove, in part, that she had an identified medical condition that required ongoing treatment and that the physician provided ongoing treatment after the alleged negligent conduct occurred. Based on these factors, the supreme court affirmed the trial court's determination that the doctrine did not apply, as the patient was not receiving ongoing treatment from any physician for any particular breast condition. Rather, the alleged negligent conduct occurred during a series of routine annual breast exams, and such routine examinations do not fit within the public policy concerns behind the doctrine, which are that a physician should be able to remain on a case from onset to cure so that any medical error can be corrected.