Skip to Main Content
Services Talent Knowledge
Site Search
Menu

Alert

Our attorneys stay on top of changes in legislation, agency regulations, case law, and industry trends—then craft timely legal alerts to keep clients up to date on legal developments important to their business.

February 24, 2023

Late Claims Against Physician Assistants Do Not Relate Back to Timely Action Against Doctors

Plaintiffs in New York State are generally free to amend their pleadings, including the addition of new parties, during the pendency of the statute of limitations. Once the statute has run, however, plaintiffs may not add additional parties unless they can establish that the causes of action against those new parties “relate back” to the pending claims.

The “relation back” doctrine gives courts freedom to exercise judicial discretion to identify cases that justify a relaxation of what is normally a strict bar, allowing plaintiffs to correct pleading errors, including the failure to name parties within the statute of limitations. In those cases, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing “(i) the causes of action arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (ii) the new party is united in interest with one or more of the original defendants . . . ; and (iii) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been commenced against him or her as well.” 

In Sanders v. Guida, the plaintiff sued individual partner-doctors of a family medical practice, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death based on the doctors’ failure to properly diagnose and treat the plaintiff’s decedent’s prostate cancer. The plaintiff did not sue the medical practice. Two years later, after the statute of limitations had run, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the complaint adding two additional physician assistants (PAs) that were formerly employed by the practice and purportedly provided care to the decedent. Both PAs moved to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred. The Supreme Court of the State of New York denied both motions, and the PAs appealed.

The Second Department reversed the lower court’s denial of the PAs’ motions, expounding upon what it means for parties be “united in interest” and whether the PAs could reasonably conclude that they would not be sued in the future.  

The court reasoned that, in a negligence or malpractice action, interests are united only where one party may be held vicariously liable for the acts of another. Here, the plaintiff failed to establish vicarious liability because the PAs were employed by the practice and not by the individual doctors. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish that the PAs were directly supervised or controlled by the individual doctors. The plaintiff also failed to establish that the PAs should have known they would be sued, as their treatment and employment ended several years prior to the action being commenced.  

Significantly here, despite the small, family-practice nature of the business, the court refused to extend vicarious liability without the practice named as a direct defendant. This is an interesting analysis for defense counsel and carriers alike. 

If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Daniel Martucci, associate, at dmartucci@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
 

Featured Media

Alerts

Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Gladys Vasquez, Monique Reid, Raymond Forrest, Pedro Martinez, Linda Slade, and Felipe Fernandez—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

Alerts

Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Compres, Sanchez, Fontanez, Pajaro, Garcia, and Jaquez—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

Alerts

Website Accessibility Lawsuits: Several "Tester" Plaintiffs—Competello, Fernandez, Liz, Riley, and Trippett—Targeting Businesses in Recent Flurry of Lawsuits

Alerts

CDPAP Providers Get First Look at the Future of CDPAP Without FIs

Alerts

New York State Fiscal Year 2025 Budget: Implications for Employers Unpacked

Alerts

Lab Providers Under Increased Scrutiny From Civil and Criminal Agencies for OTC COVID-19 Test Claims

We're Growing in DC!

We’re excited to announce Barclay Damon’s combination with Washington DC–based Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram. SLS’s 10 lawyers, three paralegals, and four administrative staff will join Barclay Damon while maintaining their current office in DC’s central business district. Our clients will benefit from SLS’s corporate, real estate, finance, and construction litigation experience and national energy-industry profile, and their clients from our full range of services.

Read More

This site uses cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site and in some cases direct advertisements to you based upon your use of our site.

By clicking [I agree], you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For information on what cookies we use and how to manage our use of cookies, please visit our Privacy Statement.

I AgreeOpt-Out