You are here: / / THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1”...
,

THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1” MINUTE TO ADDRESS SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE, BUT A NURSE MISTAKENLY PROGRAMMED THE MACHINE TO ADMINISTER THE MEDICATION FOR “11” MINUTES; THE ACTION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled this case sounded in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence, and explained the difference. Plaintiff had been given the wrong dosage of tPA upon arrival at the hospital to address symptoms of a stroke. Due to a mistake, the machine was programmed to administer a quantity of the drug for “11” minutes, instead of the “1” minute ordered by the doctor. The mistake was noticed after three minutes:

… [T]he case is one of medical malpractice only. “Conduct may be deemed malpractice, rather than negligence, when it constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician” … . “The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” … . As relevant here, plaintiffs’ claims are based upon allegations that defendants acted negligently in their medical care and treatment of plaintiff — i.e., defendants’ actions or omissions with respect to the proper dosing of tPA, the progression of the stroke with or without the proper administration of tPA, the medical benefits and risks of tPA based on the proper or improper administration of the medication, and the potential loss of the opportunity to attain tPA’s benefits based on its improper administration. Although it is undisputed that a nurse inadvertently mis-administered the tPA by erroneously programming the pump, she was assisting the physician by administering the prescribed medication and was an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to the patient. The nurse’s error does not transform this case to one of simple negligence rather than medical malpractice … . Holland v Cayuga Med. Ctr. at Ithaca, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03896, Third Dept 6-17-21

 

You might also like
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Which Included Service by E-Mail and Text Message) Required Dismissal of the Petitions
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Move to Dismiss Indictment on Speedy Trial Grounds Constituted Ineffective Assistance of Counsel—Inexcusable Post-Indictment Delay Required Dismissal
AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL OR A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PURSUANT TO CPL 44O (THIRD DEPT).
OWNER OF SEASONAL BUSINESS WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
Custody Grant to Grandmother, Rather than Father, Okay
THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY STAY WAS LIFTED; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; DISAGREEING WITH THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO INTERPOSE A COUNTERCLAIM TO CANCEL THE MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (THIRD DEPT).
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SOUGHT DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND COULD NOT COMPEL... PETITIONER, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ASKED BY HER SUPERVISOR TO PICK UP A LARGE...