Continuous Care Doctrine No Bar to Veteran’s Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

New York, NYIn April 2025, the Second Circuit held that a veteran who received continuing medical care from the same Veterans Administration facility could bring a veteran medical malpractice lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Six years had elapsed between the time the medical malpractice allegedly occurred, and the date Robert Carroll filed his lawsuit. The FTCA has a 2-year statute of limitations.

Continuous Care Doctrine No Bar to Veteran’s Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Carroll was treated at the same VA facility, but he was seen by several different doctors. The issue before the Second Circuit in Carroll v. United States was whether the “continuous care” doctrine applied to pause the running of the two-year limitations period anyway.

This is a major victory for veterans because it recognizes the reality of treatment at a VA facility. Veterans typically receive care from several different physicians and specialists. When a medical mistake goes undetected for years, veterans might never have a chance to have their claims heard in court if they were not protected by the continuous care exception.

Trial court to veteran – Sorry, buddy, time’s up

Carroll first sought treatment for the pain and swelling in his leg at Stratton Veterans Hospital in Albany, New York in 2015, but his condition continued to get worse. He was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis in 2017 and was placed on a course of anticoagulation treatment. In 2019, Carroll was examined again and was told that the treatment had been unsuccessful. His condition was permanent.

He sued the U.S. government in early 2021, claiming that the facility was negligent because it failed to correctly diagnose his DVT for two years. The lower court held that his claim was barred because too much time had elapsed – in other words, “Sorry buddy, time’s up.” He appealed to the Second Circuit.

What is medical malpractice?

Medical malpractice, a kind of professional negligence, happens when a healthcare professional fails to meet the accepted standard of care and causes injury or death to the patient. A plaintiff must generally prove four things:

that the provider had a duty of care toward the patient – usually that a doctor (or other medical professional) patient relationship existed;
that the provider failed to meet the standard of care, which a reasonably competent professional would do in similar circumstances;
that the provider’s negligent act or failure to act directly caused the patient’s injury; and
that the patient suffered actual harm, such as physical injury, disability, or financial losses (medical bills, lost wages, etc.)

Proof of these four elements can become quite complicated. This is what a trial is for. Carroll may prevail or he may not, depending on the strength of the evidence. The Second Circuit’s decision is not the end of the story; it just means that that he will have the chance to do present his evidence in court.

FTCA limits veterans’ rights to sue the federal government

The FTCA provides monetary compensation when a government employee, acting within the scope of employment, injures another by wrongful act or omission. The FTCA does not govern care provided at non-VA medical facilities, community care providers, or independent contractors. The primary way that the law limits a veteran’s right to sue the VA is through the application of a strict two-year statute of limitation.

Carroll might have been better off at a non-VA hospital

For the sake of comparison, New York’s time limit for non-FTCA medical malpractice lawsuits is two and a half years from the date of the malpractice or the end of continuous treatment by that provider for that condition. California’s could be even longer – three years from the end of care or one year from discovery. Carroll might have been better protected from the consequences of medical malpractice if he had sought care at a non-VA hospital.

Continuous medical care exception

The doctor-patient relationship is typically ongoing, with patients receiving care at the same facility, from the same provider, for the same condition over time. However, if the patient believes the provider has committed medical malpractice, suing to doctor will end the relationship and the chance for continuing care. On the other hand, if the patient waits to sue until the treatment is over, their claim may be extinguished under the applicable statute of limitations.

What’s next for veterans like Robert Carroll

The Second Circuit’s decision, if it is adopted by other jurisdictions, solves the problem for veterans like Robert Carroll. By applying the continuous care doctrine even when patients are seen by several different doctors at the same facility, it allows them to preserve their legal rights. It may also contribute to the quality of the medical care they receive by supporting the continuity of doctor-patient relationships.