Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case that required the court to discuss the continuing course of treatment doctrine as it applies to late-filed medical malpractice cases. The court ultimately determined that the doctrine does apply under Massachusetts law, but it only tolls a statute of limitations up to the point at which the allegedly negligent physician stops treating the patient.
The Continuing Course of Treatment Doctrine
Medical malpractice cases must be filed within a certain period of time, or by law, the court must dismiss the case. These time limits are called statutes of limitations. Generally speaking, a statute of limitations begins when the cause of actions accrues, meaning when the negligent medical act is performed. However, in some cases, a patient may not realize that they have been a victim of medical malpractice until months or years later.
In situations in which a patient does not immediately realize their injuries, there is an exception to the statute of limitations, and it may be extended or “tolled.” Under this exception, a statute of limitations will not start until the plaintiff realizes that they have been injured.
Generally speaking, medical malpractice claims in Massachusetts must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues, subject to the discovery rule, and they are also constrained by a separate seven-year statute of repose in G.L. c. 260, § 4 (with a foreign-object exception). Accrual is often tied to when the patient knows, or reasonably should know, that he or she has been harmed by the physician’s conduct—not always to the moment the negligent act is performed. In Parr v. Rosenthal, 475 Mass. 368 (2016), the Supreme Judicial Court recognized the continuing course of treatment doctrine for the three-year limitations period: while the same physician continues to treat the patient for the same or a related condition, the limitations clock may be tolled. The doctrine ends when that physician stops treating the patient or when the patient (or parent) knows that the physician’s negligence caused the harm, and it does not extend to later care by the physician’s colleagues. Critically, continuing treatment does not extend the seven-year statute of repose; suits filed more than seven years after the act or omission are generally barred even if treatment continued.
The Appellate Court’s Ruling
In last year’s ruling, Massachusetts high court officially adopted the continuing course of treatment doctrine. However, the doctrine was not applied under the specific facts of that case because the case was filed after the three-year statute of limitations, even after the time limit was extended by the continuing course of treatment doctrine.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant doctor’s colleagues still treated their son after the defendant doctor had ceased treatment and that the statute of limitations should be tolled while the treatment was ongoing. However, the court declined to extend the doctrine to apply to the care provided by the negligent doctor’s colleagues.
Have You Been a Victim of Medical Malpractice?
If you or a loved one has recently been a victim of medical malpractice in Massachusetts, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The skilled personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys at the Shea Culgin Law have extensive experience handling all types of personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and product liability cases. Attorney Robert C. Shea prides himself in taking a client-centered approach to his representation. Free consultations are available. Call 508.510.5107 to set up a meeting with an attorney.