Perez v Fitzgerald, 2014 NY Slip Op 00744 (1st Dept. 2014)
This is a chiropractor malpractice case and the Appellate Division held that the 3 year and not the 30 month statute of limitation period applies to these types of actions. What is relevant is that in the MUA world, the whole body seems to be fair game to these enterprising chiropractors. Willets Point held that this was outside the licensure of the chiropractor, potentially illegal and not compensable.
The Appellate Division in dicta or however else you wish to phrase it has endorsed the viewpoint that a chiropractor can work beyond the vertebral column. Does this invalidate Willets Point? Better minds than me will make this call. But this is definitely something that should have the Willets Point theorist thinking. Anyway, see below:
“The fact that defendant provided treatment to the human body to address a physical condition or pain, which may be within the broad statutory definition of practicing medicine (Education Law § 6521), does not, by itself, render the treatment “medical” within the meaning of CPLR 214-a, since the use of such a broad definition would result in the inclusion of many “alternative and nontraditional approaches to diagnosing [and] treating . . . human disease'” which are clearly nonmedical in nature (Karasek v LaJoie, 92 NY2d at 175; compare Foote 118 AD2d 156).”
