Young v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that generally, “continuous treatment” requirement could not be extended past patient’s last visit connected with his or her condition unless further care or monitoring is explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient
• doctrine does not apply to routine periodic health examinations
• “[b]ecause apatient who is not aware of the need for further treatment of a condition is not faced with the dilemma that the doctrine is designed to prevent, the primary focus in determining whether the doctrine applies in a given case must remain on the patient”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).