The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court adopted the continuing treatment exception to the state medmal limitations period (three years) and reasonable discovery rule in Parr v. Rosenthal, published this week, http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/12014.pdf. The opinion offers a worthwhile review of the language and standards of Masschusetts common law interpretation of the statutory limitations periods.
tracks include (1) the problem of a minor plaintiff; (2) interaction
with statutes of repose; (3) role of the jury in fact-finding; and (4) a
dissent (from p. 37) that doesn't necessarily disagree with the
rationale but thinks the upset to settled common law invaded the
policy-making prerogative of the legislature.
Saliently for the
litigants, the Court ruled that the limitations period ran despite
operation of the continuing treatment doctrine, because the doctrine
ceased to operate when the defending physician left the treatment team.
(Cross-posted to Obligations Discussion Group.)