Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.3-6

Connecticut law recognizes that there are some situations in which the period set in a statute of

limitation does not apply or in which the date when the period begins to run is suspended or

delayed. These situations are referred to as “tolling” the statute of limitations. The time

specified for bringing suit does not run during a time when the statute of limitations is tolled.

In this case, the plaintiff has alleged that the continuing course of treatment doctrine applies and

that the statute of limitation does not apply in the way the defendant claims. The plaintiff has the

burden of proving that the statute of limitation is tolled based on the claim of a continuing course

of treatment.

The plaintiff, who claims a continuing course of treatment, must prove by a fair preponderance

of the evidence, that:

1. the plaintiff had an identified medical condition that required ongoing treatment

or monitoring;

2. the defendant provided ongoing treatment or monitoring of that medical condition

after the allegedly negligent conduct, or that the plaintiff reasonably could have

anticipated that the defendant would do so; and

3. the plaintiff brought the action within the appropriate statutory period after the

date that the treatment terminated.

An “identified medical condition” must be for the same or related illness, injury or condition that

the plaintiff sought and received treatment for and must be connected to the injury which the

plaintiff complains of in this action.

On the second element, there are two alternative considerations, either of which may support a

finding of continuing treatment. First, if the relation of physician and patient continues as to the

identified medical condition, such as ongoing treatment or monitoring, then the treatment is

continuing. Second, if the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation that the treatment for the

identified medical condition will be ongoing, then the treatment is continuing.

You must decide whether the plaintiff’s claim was part of a continuing course of treatment, and

if so, was timely brought after the treatment terminated.

If you find that the plaintiff has demonstrated that there was a continuing course of treatment,

then the plaintiff may prevail on claims resulting from the alleged act(s) of negligence, even if

the alleged act(s) of negligence (was/were) outside the <number of years> year limitation period

but only if the plaintiff brought this action within <number of years> years after the date the

treatment terminated.

If there is a continuing course of treatment, the plaintiff’s claim is barred if the claim was not

brought within <number of years> years after the treatment for the identified medical condition

ceased. If the alleged negligent act was not part of a continuing course of treatment, but an

isolated act of treatment, the plaintiff cannot prevail on claims based on those alleged incidents

that were not brought within <number of years> years of the alleged negligence.