Legal Definitions - continuous-treatment doctrine

The continuous-treatment doctrine is a legal principle that affects the time limit for filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. In essence, it pauses or "tolls" the statute of limitations—the legal deadline for bringing a claim—while a patient continues to receive ongoing treatment from the same healthcare provider for the specific condition or injury that is alleged to have resulted from that provider's earlier negligence.

This doctrine recognizes that it can be difficult or inappropriate for a patient to sue their doctor while still under their care for the very issue that forms the basis of the potential lawsuit. It ensures that the time limit for filing a claim does not unfairly expire while the patient is still seeking resolution or recovery through the ongoing treatment relationship.

Here are some examples illustrating how the continuous-treatment doctrine might apply:

• Example 1: Undiscovered Surgical Complication

  A patient undergoes knee surgery. Several months later, they continue to experience persistent pain and swelling. The patient returns to the same orthopedic surgeon for multiple follow-up appointments, diagnostic tests, and physical therapy sessions, all aimed at addressing the ongoing discomfort. During one of these follow-up procedures, it is discovered that a small piece of surgical equipment was inadvertently left inside the knee during the initial operation. The continuous-treatment doctrine would likely apply here, meaning the statute of limitations for filing a malpractice claim against the surgeon would not begin until the ongoing treatment for the knee pain (which was related to the alleged negligence) concluded, or the foreign object was discovered during the course of that treatment.

• Example 2: Prolonged Misdiagnosis and Ineffective Treatment

  A patient consults their primary care physician about a persistent cough and fatigue. The doctor diagnoses it as a common cold and prescribes rest. Over the next year, the patient's symptoms worsen, and they make several return visits to the same doctor, who continues to treat the condition as a respiratory infection, prescribing various antibiotics and cough suppressants. Eventually, the patient seeks a second opinion from a specialist, who correctly diagnoses a serious underlying lung condition that should have been identified much earlier. In this scenario, the continuous-treatment doctrine would pause the statute of limitations while the patient was continuously receiving treatment from the first doctor for the misdiagnosed condition, even though that treatment was based on an alleged initial error.

• Example 3: Dental Procedure with Ongoing Complications

  A patient receives a dental implant from their dentist. Shortly after the procedure, the patient experiences severe and unusual pain, numbness, and difficulty chewing. The patient returns to the same dentist multiple times over the next six months for adjustments, pain management, and attempts to identify and correct the problem. It is later determined that the implant was improperly placed, causing nerve damage. The continuous-treatment doctrine would likely prevent the statute of limitations from running during the entire period the patient was receiving follow-up care from that same dentist for the complications directly stemming from the implant procedure.