You are here: / / DEFENDANT RADIOLOGIST WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE A MAMMOGRAM AS A ROUTINE-SCREENING...
,

DEFENDANT RADIOLOGIST WAS ASKED TO EVALUATE A MAMMOGRAM AS A ROUTINE-SCREENING PROCEDURE AND, ACCORDING TO HIS EXPERT, DID SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED PRACTICES; PLAINTIFF WAS DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CANCER A YEAR LATER; THE RADIOLOGIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the radiologist’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice (failure to diagnose) action should have been granted. The radiologist was asked to evaluate a “routine-screening” mammogram and indicated there were no suspicious findings. A year later plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer and she died a little more than three years after that. From the radiologist’s perspective, the Second Department concluded, there was nothing to indicate that cancer was suspected and that anything more than a routine-screening was prescribed by plaintiff’s physician:

“Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient” … . “The question of whether a physician owes a duty to the plaintiff is a question for the court, and is not an appropriate subject for expert opinion” … .

Here, the radiology defendants established, prima facie, that [defendant] Blumberg discharged his duty to the decedent in accordance with accepted practice for radiologists … . Siegel-Goldman, the radiology defendants’ expert, concluded that Blumberg’s interpretation of the April 21, 2010 mammogram was in conformity with accepted practices. …

… [T}he mere fact that the decedent indicated on the mammography worksheet that she experienced some pain in her left breast did not impose a heightened duty of care on Blumberg, who never saw or treated the decedent, and whose only role was to interpret the mammography images and report his findings to the prescribing physician … . Mann v Okere, 2021 NY Slip Op 04014, Second Dept 6-23-21

 

You might also like
Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)
PROBATE PETITION PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, EVIDENCE SOME WILL PAGES MISSING AT TIME OF EXECUTION.
Jury Verdict Finding No Negligence Reversed on Appeal/Article 16 Defenses Re: Negligence of Non-Party Allowed
BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE REMOVED PLAINTIFF’S BOYFRIEND FROM PLAINTIFF’S PREMISES THREE TIMES TELLING PLAINTIFF HE WOULD NOT COME BACK AND SHE WILL BE OKAY; THEN HER BOYFRIEND THREW HER OUT A THIRD FLOOR WINDOW; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY; THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF AFTER SURGERY RESULTING IN MEMORY LOSS WAS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT, THEREFORE A CAUSE OF ACTION RESULTING FROM PLAINTIFF’S LEAVING THE HOSPITAL SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, ALTHOUGH PARTIALLY GRANTED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT TO LAY FOUNDATIONS FOR THE ADMISSION OF POLICE AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUSINESS RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF HIS INTOXICATION DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (SECOND 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

NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING A LOUD... MURDER SECOND DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF MURDER FIRST (SECOND...