You are here: / / RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT...
,

RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant resident physicians’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s bowel was perforated during an emergency caesrean section. The residents did not exercise any independent judgment during the surgery and were not required to intervene in the treatment by the attending physician (Dr. Balaya):

Dr. Bayala’s affidavit also addressed the care provided by the three resident physicians. Dr. Balaya averred that the resident physicians were all under his supervision and direction and, thus, they never exercised independent judgment or made an independent decision with respect to plaintiff’s care or treatment … . In addition, Dr. Balaya averred that none of the resident physicians could be held liable for failure to intervene in plaintiff’s care and treatment on the ground that his alleged deviations from normal medical practice were so great that such intervention was warranted … . …

Plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion failed to raise an issue of fact whether any of the resident physicians exercised independent medical judgment in plaintiff’s care or treatment, or neglected to intervene in plaintiff’s care or treatment where the attending physician’s directions greatly deviated from normal medical practice … . Groff v Kaleida Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 03249, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RESIDENT PHYSICIANS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO RETURN PLAINTIFF’S TESLA TO ITS PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITION AND THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH COMPARABLE TRANSPORTATION WHILE THE TESLA WAS BEING REPAIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH BAIL-SETTING IS NOT APPEALABLE, WHETHER THE BAIL-SETTING COURT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY STANDARDS INHIBITING EXCESSIVE BAIL IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; HERE THE BAIL-SETTNG COURT DID NOT COMPLY WITH CPL 510.30; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT-LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD-PAINT-INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE, INTER ALIA, LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.
HERE THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HAD ORDERED A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL RECORD WAS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS PROPERLY DONE AND AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; THE DISSENT TOOK ISSUE WITH NATURE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Indictment Dismissed after Trial as Multiplicitous and Duplicitous/Grand Larceny Can Not Be Based Upon the Violation of a Regulation that Is Civil in Nature
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF SUFFERED AN EYE INJURY AT SOME POINT IN HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY OR... DEFENDANT CITY PAVED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING A ROAD TO A PAVED PARK PATH, DEFENDANT...