In Devadas v. Niksarli, 2014 WL 4355908 (1st Dep't Sept. 4, 2014), the patient failed to see the treater for nearly three years following the last treatment. In assessing the trial verdict, the court found that the continuous treatment doctrine applied, however, because the record showed that the patient was seen for what the court concluded was the same condition as the earlier visits: blurry vision in the left eye. In addition, the treater had guaranteed that the earlier treatment would correct the condition. Id. In Devadas, the patient met with his treater in a single visit nearly three years after his earlier treatment. In finding that the statute of limitations was tolled, the First Department noted that Devadas believed that he was "under the active treatment of defendant at all times so long as the [earlier treatment] did not result in an appreciable improvement" of his condition. Id. Another factor included whether the patient sought treatment and whether there was '"an ongoing relationship of trust and confidence between"' the parties. Id.