You are here: / / Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician...
,

Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied

The Second Department noted that a hospital generally may not be held liable for the actions of a private attending physician (Simoncic) where the hospital employees merely carry out the orders of the private physician.  Here, however, there was evidence the attending physician’s order was contraindicated.  Therefore the hospital’s motion to dismiss was properly denied:

With regard to the Hospital’s potential liability, a hospital may not be held liable for injuries suffered by a patient who is under the care of a private attending physician chosen by the patient where the resident physicians and nurses employed by the hospital merely carry out the orders of the private attending physician, unless the hospital staff commits “independent acts of negligence or the attending physician’s orders are contraindicated by normal practice” (Cerny v Williams, 32 AD3d 881, 883; see Cham v St. Mary’s Hosp. of Brooklyn, 72 AD3d 1003, 1004).

Here, the Hospital established, prima facie, that Simoncic was a private attending physician, and that its employees did not commit independent acts of negligence and that Simoncic’s discharge order that [the patient] be given a prescription for Levaquin was not contraindicated by normal practice. However, in opposition, the plaintiff, through her opposing medical expert’s affirmation, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the prescribing of Levaquin was contraindicated by normal practice … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Fink v DeAngelis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03648, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

You might also like
Failure to Turn Over Impeachment Evidence Re: a Central Prosecution Witness Required Vacation of the Conviction
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE JURY PROPERLY FOUND THE LANDLORD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO MAINTAIN A HANDRAIL BUT THE LOOSE HANDRAIL WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY THE INSURED’S CAR, THE FACT THAT A PREMIUM SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRIOR $1,000,000 POLICY HAD BEEN PAID WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND, EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS DEEMED TO BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SIDEWALK; THEREFORE THE STATUTE REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS SIDEWALK CONDITION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR COUNTY LIABILITY APPLIED; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
UNSIGNED DEPOSITIONS WERE ADMISSIBLE AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, CONVICTION REVERSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EPTL 2-1.13, Which Required that Certain Formula Clauses in Trusts and Wills... The Availability of Pre-Suit Discovery in a Shareholder Derivative Action is...