Linda L. Otto, Hugh Otto v. National Institute of Health

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the continuous treatment doctrine applied where the plaintiff’s “care at [the National Institute of Health (“NIH”
• explaining that when a patient’s doctors gave her “reasonable and credible” assurances that her injury was temporary, her claim did not accrue until her doctors later informed her that the injury was permanent
• “[T]he doctrine permits a wronged patient to benefit from his physician’s corrective efforts without the disruption of a malpractice action.”
• \The continuous treatment doctrine is based on a patient's right to place trust and confidence in his physician. . . . [T]he patient is excused from challenging the quality of care being rendered until the confidential relationship terminates\
• “The continuous treatment doctrine is based on a patient’s right to place trust and confidence in his physician. . . . [T]he patient is excused from challenging the quality of care being rendered until the confidential relationship terminates”
• “[W]here there has been a course of continuous medical treatment, a claim may not accrue until the end of that course of treatment, if the treatment has been for the same illness or - 13 - injury out of which the claim for medical malpractice arose.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).