continuing treatment rule in Maryland

2007The continuous course of treatment rule in medical malpractice cases apparently was abrogated in the later case of Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689, 700 , 501 A.2d 27, 32-33 (1985), where we said; "The provisions of § 5-109, and the intent underlying the enactment of that statute, are plainly inconsistent with the survival of the continuing treatment rule.

2007The continuous course of treatment rule in medical malpractice cases apparently was abrogated in the later case of Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689, 700 , 501 A.2d 27, 32-33 (1985), where we said; "The provisions of § 5-109, and the intent underlying the enactment of that statute, are plainly inconsistent with the survival of the continuing treatment rule.

1986FM & I undertakes to demonstrate the validity of its proposition by reference principally to decisions concerning *249 statute of limitations issues in medical malpractice cases. 2 In general these decisions represent a corollary to the continuing treatment rule which we described in Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689, 698 , 501 A.2d 27, 31 (1985) as operating in the following fashion: “[I]f the treatment by the doctor is a continuing course and the patient’s disease or condition is of such a nature as to impose on the doctor a duty of continuing treatment and care, the statute does not commence

1986FM & I undertakes to demonstrate the validity of its proposition by reference principally to decisions concerning *249 statute of limitations issues in medical malpractice cases. 2 In general these decisions represent a corollary to the continuing treatment rule which we described in Hill v. Fitzgerald, 304 Md. 689, 698 , 501 A.2d 27, 31 (1985) as operating in the following fashion: “[I]f the treatment by the doctor is a continuing course and the patient’s disease or condition is of such a nature as to impose on the doctor a duty of continuing treatment and care, the statute does not commence

1985More specifically, the reason for the rule, as set forth in Brown v. United States, 353 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir.1965), “is that one is presumed to repose confidence in the individual doctor to whom he entrusts his medical problems and that the confidential relationship excuses the making of inquiry which questions the care which has been or is being given during the existence of the relationship.” Where applicable, the continuing treatment rule simply tolls the statute of limitations by delaying the accrual date of undiscoverable medical malpractice until the termination of treatment.

1985More specifically, the reason for the rule, as set forth in Brown v. United States, 353 F.2d 578, 580 (9th Cir.1965), "is that one is presumed to repose confidence in the individual doctor to whom he entrusts his medical problems and that the confidential relationship excuses the making of inquiry which questions the care which has been or is being given during the existence of the relationship." Where applicable, the continuing treatment rule simply tolls the statute of limitations by delaying the accrual date of undiscoverable medical malpractice until the termination of treatment.

1985The doctrine of continuing treatment provides that when there is a continuing course of treatment, the statute does not begin to run until the treatment is terminated, Decker v. Fink, 47 Md.App. 202, 209 [ 422 A.2d 389 ] (1980).

1985The doctrine of continuing treatment provides that when there is a continuing course of treatment, the statute does not begin to run until the treatment is terminated, Decker v. Fink, 47 Md.App. 202, 209 [ 422 A.2d 389 ] (1980).

1966See Shives v. Chamberlain (Ore.), 126 P. 2d 28 ; Hotelling v. Walther (Ore.), 130 P. 2d 944 ; Williams v. Elias (Neb.), 1 N. W. 2d 121 ; Peteler v. Robison (Utah), 17 P. 2d 244 ; Schmit v. Esser (Minn.), 236 N. W. 622 (ankle fracture); Thatcher v. DeTar (Mo.), 173 S. W. 2d 760 ; Hundley v. St.