## Facts

- In October 1970, a physician performed a neck surgery on a patient, allegedly negligently injuring nerves.
- After surgery, the patient reported numbness and difficulty raising her right arm.
- The patient alleged the physician knew the injury was serious and potentially permanent but intentionally misrepresented that the symptoms were temporary and would resolve with prescribed physiotherapy.
- The patient continued physiotherapy until October 1974 and consulted other doctors, receiving opinions that the condition likely resulted from the surgery and that physiotherapy would not help.
- In April 1976, the patient sued for (1) medical malpractice based on negligent surgery and (2) intentional fraud based on concealment and misrepresentations that allegedly delayed effective treatment and worsened her condition.
- The trial court denied a limitations-based dismissal motion; the intermediate appellate court reversed and dismissed as time-barred.

## Issues

1. Whether a physician’s alleged post-treatment concealment and misrepresentations can equitably estop the physician from asserting the statute of limitations against a malpractice claim otherwise untimely on its face.
2. Whether the pleadings stated a distinct cause of action for intentional fraud separate from malpractice, and, if so, which limitations period applied.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the complaint.
- The court held the pleadings alleged two causes of action: negligence (medical malpractice) and intentional fraud.
- The court held equitable estoppel could bar the physician from relying on the malpractice limitations period where the plaintiff alleged intentional concealment and misrepresentation that induced delay.
- On the pleadings, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the action was not brought within a reasonable time after the patient discovered the alleged malpractice.
- The court held the fraud claim was governed by the six-year statute of limitations for fraud and could proceed.
- The court noted the malpractice and fraud claims could support different measures of damages.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations when the defendant’s affirmative, subsequent misconduct (including intentional misrepresentations and concealment) causes the plaintiff’s delay in suing.
- When equitable estoppel applies, the plaintiff must sue within a reasonable time after discovering the wrongdoing.
- Post-malpractice deceit that causes distinct, additional injury (such as loss of a timely opportunity for effective treatment) can support a separate cause of action for intentional fraud, not merely a relabeling of malpractice.
- A claim based on intentional fraud is subject to the six-year limitations period applicable to fraud under New York law.
- On a CPLR 3211(a)(5) limitations motion, courts accept the complaint’s allegations and admissible supporting affidavits as true and do not resolve factual disputes about diligence and timing.

## Conclusion

The court allowed both malpractice and intentional fraud claims to proceed, holding that alleged intentional concealment and misrepresentation can equitably estop a physician from asserting a malpractice limitations defense and that a distinct fraud claim is governed by New York’s six-year fraud limitations period.


Simcuski v. Saeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 406 N.Y.S.2d 259, 377 N.E.2d 713 (N.Y. 1978)