Opinion ID: 1535513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: continuing treatment/prior delaware cases

Text: Despite the clarity of 18 Del.C. § 6856, the Superior Court in this case noted that the continuing treatment doctrine has been recognized in Delaware although no Delaware court has ever affirmatively held that the continuing treatment doctrine applied. [8] This Court has referred to continuing treatment in Peters v. Nejad, Del.Supr. 411 A.2d 610 (1979), and again, after remand in Peters v. Nejad, Del.Supr. 454 A.2d 765 (1982). The continuing treatment doctrine has also been referred to in a plethora of Superior Court cases. [9] A review of those Superior Court decisions leads to the conclusion that a continuation of medical treatment has been found to be significant only when a course of treatment is so interrelated that there is no proper basis for compartmentalizing the chronology in applying the statute of limitations. See Streitz v. LeRoy, Del.Super., C.A. No. 84C-OC-127, Walsh, Justice (April 28, 1986); Sanchez v. Abdel-Misih, Del.Super., C.A. 82C-DE-111, Moore, Justice (June 16, 1986) and Lichtman v. Strauss, Del.Super., C.A. 85C-JL-43, Stiftel, P.J. (September 23, 1986). [10] Therefore, in fact, what the Delaware courts have recognized is more appropriately described as a cause of action for continuous negligent medical treatment.