Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Verdicts

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
April 02, 2014

Chiropractic Care Is Not Necessarily 'Medical' Care

A unanimous panel of New York's Appellate Division has declared that the statute of limitations for suing a chiropractor for malpractice in the State is three years, not the two-and-a-half years prescribed by statute as the limitations period for medical, dental and podiatric malpractice. Perez v. Fitzgerald, 305261/09, 2014 NY Slip Op 00744 (App. Div. 1St Dept., 2/6/14).

The plaintiff began seeing the defendant chiropractor in 2005 for treatment of neck and back pain following a car accident. At some time during the patient's course of treatment, the chiropractor ordered an MRI but did not read the results herself, instead relying on a report from the radiologist. The patient saw another chiropractor in 2008, who ordered a second MRI ' this one showed that the plaintiff had a tumor on her spine, which required surgical removal. The plaintiff then sued her first chiropractor, alleging that she was negligent in not diagnosing the tumor with the first, unread, MRI.

The defendant chiropractor moved for dismissal, asserting that the misdiagnosis, if any, took place more than two and a half years prior to the filing of the suit, so that the lawsuit was untimely under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) ' 214-a. That statute says that any lawsuit for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice must be filed within two and a half years of the alleged negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit.

The appeals court reversed. It pointed to a 1986 case that addressed the nature of chiropractic services; it said that the issue “as to whether [the defendant chiropractor's] services constituted medical treatment” was a question of fact for the jury (Foote v Picinich, 118 AD2d 156, 157 (3d Dept 1986)). That question turns on whether the treatment is incident to medical care. Here, the appeals court found that the plaintiff's chiropractic treatment was not medical treatment because it “was not an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to a patient or substantially related to any medical treatment provided by a physician.” Thus, claims related to this care were not subject to the shortened limitations period of CPLR ' 214-a, which has been narrowly applied in New York; for example, New York courts have previously held that things such as psychological and optometric care are not “medical care.” As this was not medical treatment under New York law, any injury caused by the plaintiff's chiropractic care was subject to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR ' 214(6), which governs professional malpractice claims other than those concerning medical, dental or podiatric care. The Appellate Division explained that, had the patient been referred to the chiropractor by a licensed physician the result would have been different as, under that circumstance, the chiropractic care provided would have been considered an integral part of the patient's medical care.

Chiropractic Care Is Not Necessarily 'Medical' Care

A unanimous panel of New York's Appellate Division has declared that the statute of limitations for suing a chiropractor for malpractice in the State is three years, not the two-and-a-half years prescribed by statute as the limitations period for medical, dental and podiatric malpractice. Perez v. Fitzgerald, 305261/09, 2014 NY Slip Op 00744 (App. Div. 1St Dept., 2/6/14).

The plaintiff began seeing the defendant chiropractor in 2005 for treatment of neck and back pain following a car accident. At some time during the patient's course of treatment, the chiropractor ordered an MRI but did not read the results herself, instead relying on a report from the radiologist. The patient saw another chiropractor in 2008, who ordered a second MRI ' this one showed that the plaintiff had a tumor on her spine, which required surgical removal. The plaintiff then sued her first chiropractor, alleging that she was negligent in not diagnosing the tumor with the first, unread, MRI.

The defendant chiropractor moved for dismissal, asserting that the misdiagnosis, if any, took place more than two and a half years prior to the filing of the suit, so that the lawsuit was untimely under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) ' 214-a. That statute says that any lawsuit for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice must be filed within two and a half years of the alleged negligence. The trial court dismissed the suit.

The appeals court reversed. It pointed to a 1986 case that addressed the nature of chiropractic services; it said that the issue “as to whether [the defendant chiropractor's] services constituted medical treatment” was a question of fact for the jury (Foote v Picinich, 118 AD2d 156, 157 (3d Dept 1986)). That question turns on whether the treatment is incident to medical care. Here, the appeals court found that the plaintiff's chiropractic treatment was not medical treatment because it “was not an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to a patient or substantially related to any medical treatment provided by a physician.” Thus, claims related to this care were not subject to the shortened limitations period of CPLR ' 214-a, which has been narrowly applied in New York; for example, New York courts have previously held that things such as psychological and optometric care are not “medical care.” As this was not medical treatment under New York law, any injury caused by the plaintiff's chiropractic care was subject to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in CPLR ' 214(6), which governs professional malpractice claims other than those concerning medical, dental or podiatric care. The Appellate Division explained that, had the patient been referred to the chiropractor by a licensed physician the result would have been different as, under that circumstance, the chiropractic care provided would have been considered an integral part of the patient's medical care.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.