Parr v. Rosenthal

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant. The jury concluded, pursuant to the judge’s instructions, that the statute of limitations had run because the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known more than three years before filing his complaint that he had been harmed by the defendant. 2 , 3 Judgment entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that it was error to deny his requested instruction concerning the continuing treatment doctrine as a mechanism for tolling the statute…