Legal Opinion
Wetherill v. Eli Lilly & Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 11, 1997PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Titone, J.
CPLR 214-c (2) provides that the time for initiating a cause *509of action for damages resulting from exposure to a harmful substance begins to run from the date that the "injury” was discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. The specific issue before us in this appeal is whether an "injury” is discovered within the meaning of CPLR 214-c (2) when the symptoms become apparent or instead when the connection between those symptoms and the injured’s exposure to a toxic substance is recognized. We hold that the time for bringing the action begins…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Jensen v. General Electric Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
- Matter of Ny County Des Litig.New York Court of Appeals · 1997
- Golod v. Hoffman La RocheDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Prohaska v. Sofamor, S.N.C.District Court, W.D. New York · 2001
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.