Equitable Estoppel Preserves Plaintiff’s Medical Malpractice Claim Despite Statute of Limitations

In medical malpractice cases, a plaintiff generally must commence an action within two years and six months of the alleged negligent act, omission, or failure (C.P.L.R. §214(a)). This statute of limitations is strictly enforced, and defendants often seek dismissal of claims brought outside this period pursuant to C.P.L.R. §3211(a). However, recent case law highlights the continuing importance of equitable doctrines that can preserve claims despite technical time limitations.

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Queens County Supreme Court dismissal of a plaintiff’s malpractice action as time-barred. The underlying facts date back to April 2, 2015, when the plaintiff underwent an emergency appendectomy at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center. In May 2023, the plaintiff suffered severe abdominal pain, was diagnosed with stump appendicitis, and required additional surgery at St. John’s Hospital.

The plaintiff filed a malpractice action on June 28, 2023, alleging that the defendants negligently performed the initial appendectomy by leaving an appendiceal stump and failed to disclose this complication. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under C.P.L.R. §3211(a), arguing that the action was untimely because it was filed more than eight years after the original surgery. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and upon reargument, adhered to its ruling.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals clarified the law regarding equitable estoppel in the medical malpractice context. The court emphasized that, although the statute of limitations sets a hard deadline, a defendant may be precluded from asserting this defense if its affirmative misrepresentations prevent the plaintiff from timely discovering the malpractice. Here, the plaintiff submitted evidence that the surgeon represented the entire appendix had been removed, preventing the plaintiff from realizing that further injury had occurred until 2023.

Citing established precedent, the Court held that these allegations were sufficient to trigger the equitable estoppel doctrine, creating a question of fact that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion was denied, and the plaintiff’s claim was allowed to proceed.

Giulia R. Marino, Esq.