Legal Opinion
Rodriguez v. Manhattan Medical Group, P. C.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 27, 1990PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Titone, J.
Although a medical malpractice action must ordinarily be brought within 2Vi years after the act, omission or failure complained of, the time for commencing an action based on the discovery of a "foreign object” does not begin to run until the date the object was, or should have been, discovered (CPLR 214-a). This appeal requires us to consider whether a "fixation device” originally implanted in a patient’s body for a specific treatment purpose is transformed into a "foreign object” within the meaning of this rule when a physician *219retained to remove it negligently…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Flanagan v. Mount Eden General HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
- Schwartz v. Heyden Newport Chemical Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Thornton v. Roosevelt HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Martin v. Edwards LaboratoriesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- McCoy v. FeinmanNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Rockefeller v. MorontNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- LaBarbera v. New York Eye & Ear InfirmaryNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- B.F. v. Reprod. Med. Assocs. of N.Y., LLPCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 2017
- Adam L. Walton v. Strong Memorial HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 2015
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.