What's happening
This bill changes the statute of limitations for medical, dental, and podiatric malpractice to begin when the injury is discovered, not when the malpractice occurred, and revives certain past claims.
Why it matters
Enables patients to seek justice for injuries discovered long after medical treatment. By basing the statute of limitations on when an injury is discovered (or should have been discovered), rather than when the malpractice occurred, the law accounts for delayed or hidden harm, such as misdiagnoses or latent injuries.
Limits extended liability to seven years after the alleged malpractice. Even with the new discovery rule, the bill sets a maximum “window” of seven years from the date of the alleged negligent act or last continuous treatment, balancing patient rights with legal certainty for providers.
Revives certain previously time-barred claims, offering a second chance for redress. People who were unaware of their injury and whose claims expired in the last seven years before the law’s passage can now file suit, provided they do so within one year—potentially leading to a wave of new or previously impossible lawsuits.
Aligns the statute of limitations across various legal contexts. The bill ensures the new discovery-based rule applies consistently to claims against public hospitals and state-run institutions, not just private practitioners, affecting liability and risk management for public entities.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Extend Malpractice Lawsuit Window
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
37 Co-sponsors
- Joseph P. Addabbo Jr.
- Fredrick J. Akshar II
- Marisol Alcantara
- George Amedore
- Tony Avella
- Jamaal Bailey
- Brian Benjamin
- Phil Boyle
- Neil D. Breslin
- John E. Brooks
- Leroy Comrie
- Martin Malavé Dilan
- Simcha Felder
- Rich Funke
- Patrick M. Gallivan
- Michael Gianaris
- Martin J. Golden
- Jesse Hamilton
- Pamela Helming
- Brad Hoylman-Sigal
- Todd Kaminsky
- Timothy M. Kennedy
- Liz Krueger
- Andrew J. Lanza
- William J. Larkin Jr.
- Velmanette Montgomery
- Kevin S. Parker
- José Peralta
- Roxanne J. Persaud
- Michael H. Ranzenhofer
- Patty Ritchie
- Gustavo Rivera
- Joseph E. Robach
- James Sanders Jr.
- José M. Serrano
- Toby Ann Stavisky
- Catharine Young
History
- Referred to judiciary
- Referred to judiciary
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
4080
2017-2018 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
February 2, 2017
Introduced by Sens. DeFRANCISCO, AKSHAR, AMEDORE, BOYLE, BRESLIN, FUNKE, GALLIVAN, HAMILTON, HOYLMAN, KAMINSKY, KRUEGER, LANZA, LARKIN, MONT- GOMERY, PERKINS, RANZENHOFER, RITCHIE, ROBACH, SANDERS, YOUNG -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to accrual of causes of action for medical, dental and podiatric malpractice
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. The opening paragraph of subdivision (g) of section 203 of the civil practice law and rules is designated paragraph 1 and a new paragraph 2 is added to read as follows:
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, for the purposes of sections fifty-e and fifty-i of the general municipal law, section ten of the court of claims act, and the provisions of any other law pertaining to the commencement of an action or special proceeding, or to the filing of a notice of claim as a condition precedent to commencement of an action or special proceeding within a specified time period, the period in which to commence an action or proceeding or to file such notice of claim for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice shall not begin to run until the later of either: (a) when one knows or reasonably should have known of the alleged negligent act or omission and knows or reasonably should have known that such negligent act or omission has caused an injury; or (b) the date of the last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the accrual of an action. However, such action shall commence no later than seven years from the act, omission or failure complained of or last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the act, omission or failure; provided, however, that where the action is based upon the discovery of a foreign object in the body of a
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD02848-03-7
S. 4080 2
patient, the action may be commenced within one year of the date of such discovery or of the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier.
§ 2. Section 214-a of the civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 485 of the laws of 1986, is amended to read as follows:
§ 214-a. Action for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice to be commenced within two years and six months; exceptions. An action for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice must be commenced within two years and six months of the accrual of any such action. The accrual of an action occurs at the later of either (a) when one knows or reasonably should have known of the alleged negligent act or omission and knows or reasonably should have known that such negligent act or omission has caused an injury; or (b) the date of the last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the accrual of an action. However, such action shall commence no later than seven years from the act, omission or failure complained of or last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise to the said act, omission or failure; provided, however, that where the action is based upon the discovery of a foreign object in the body of the patient, the action may be commenced within one year of the date of such discovery or of the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier. For the purpose of this section the term "continuous treatment" shall not include examinations undertaken at the request of the patient for the sole purpose of ascertaining the state of the patient's condition. For the purpose of this section the term "foreign object" shall not include a chemical compound, fixation device or prosthetic aid or device.
§ 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including sections 50-e and 50-i of the general municipal law, section 10 of the court of claims act and the provisions of any general, special or local law or charter requiring as a condition precedent to commencement of an action or special proceeding that a notice of claim be filed or presented, every action for personal injuries or wrongful death stemming from alleged medical malpractice which has been barred during and up to the seven year period prior to the effective date of this act solely because the applicable period of limitations has or had expired before the injured plaintiff or injured claimant or the representative of their estate did not know and reasonably should not have known that they had been injured as a result of medical malpractice is hereby revived and an action thereon may be commenced provided such action is commenced within one year from the effective date of this act.
§ 4. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to accrual of causes of action for medical, dental and podiatric malpractice
Purpose of bill
To amend the statute of limitations for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice to include a discovery of injury rule, allowing the current two and half year statute of limitations to run from the date an injured patient discovers, or should have discovered, that their injury was caused by malpractice. However, in no event shall a malpractice action be filed more than seven years after the date of the alleged malpractice. Upon the effective date, patients will have only one year in which to file a claim for medical malpractice where, during and up to the seven year period prior to the effective date, the applicable periods of limitations has or had expired before the injured plaintiff/claimant or representative of their estate knew or should have known of the injury and the negligent conduct causing the injury.
Summary of provisions of bill
Section 1 - Opening paragraph of subdivision (g) of section 203 of the civil practice law and rules is designated paragraph 1 and a new paragraph 2 is added.
Read the full memo (878 words)
Section 2 - Amends Section 214-a of the civil practice law and rules, as amended by chapter 485 of the laws of 1986.
Section 3 - Notice of claim provision.
Section 4 - Effective date
Justification
New York's current statute of limitations as to medical malpractice is two and one half years from the date of the act, omission or failure complained of or last treatment where there is continuous treatment. It is not only the shortest negligence statute in the State of New York, except for claims against municipalities, but works undue hardship in its application and interpretation.
The courts in this State have consistently interpreted the accrual of a cause of action for negligence as occurring at the time the act complained of occurred. In medical malpractice cases, arising out of a misdiagnosis or the failure to diagnose, the injury suffered by the victim of such a tort is often discovered until well after the statute of limitation has expired.
This injustice is sometimes seen when a patient discovers the growth of a cancerous tumor. For example, a patient is seen by a physician for general complaints and a series of tests are ordered, including an x-ray. The patient is diagnosed as having no illness. Several years later the patient is diagnosed as having a spot on the lung by a different physician. Review of the original x-ray films show the presence of a spot on the earlier film. Time is of the essence in the treatment of cancer if one is to get a favorable chance at long term survival. If more than two and one half years have passed from the date of the original x-ray (assuming no continuous course of treatment), the patient's claim is time barred, despite the fact that the patient could not have reasonably known of the existence of the medical misconduct.
Another example of this type of injustice occurs when a patient has been exposed to inadequate hygienic conditions, i.e. is infected with hepatitis-C or HIV by an inadequately sterilized, re-used, or otherwise "dirty" syringe. The infected patient may in fact be totally asymptomatic for years after the two and one half year statute of limitations has expired. However, if symptoms (and hence discovery of the medical misconduct) become apparent only after the expiration of the statute, the patient nevertheless has no legal recourse.
The current statute of limitations is based upon an antiquated rule that a cause of action sounding in negligence accrues at the time of the negligent act. The better rule and the one most widely adopted in other jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, North Carolina, and claims against the United States of America arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is one which recognizes that some injuries do not manifest themselves at the time of the negligent act, and which permits a victim of medical malpractice to discover his or her injury before their statutory deadline for filing suite expires. New York has dealt with this problem in the field of Toxic Torts, for which the Legislature enacted CPLR Section 214c. That section set forth a discovery rule in 1986. The justification for the passage of 214-c was that individuals who were exposed to toxic substances might not show any adverse health effects until after the three (3) year (general negligence) statute of limitations had run. The issue was revisited in 1992 when that act was amended to include implantation within "exposure" to remedy an injustice to victims of breast implants.
This bill would remove this significant loophole in the law, which allows a patient's rights to expire without the patient even knowing that she had any rights. The bill would not mandate that any claim be deemed meritorious - instead, the bill would merely prevent the state statute of limitations from being used as an unfair and inequitable shield from professionally negligent medical misconduct.
Legislative history
S.7130 of 2014: S.911A-2015; 2016 - S.6596/B/A10719A
Fiscal implications for sate and local governments
Undetermined.
Effective date
Immediately.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.