You are here: / / THE COMPANY WHICH STAFFED THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE...
, ,

THE COMPANY WHICH STAFFED THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PHYSICIANS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, AS OPPOSED TO EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE COMPANY WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant NES, which staffed the hospital emergency room, should not have been granted summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. NES alleged the emergency room physicians who treated plaintiff (Perez) were independent contractors, not employees, and therefore NES was not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the physicians:

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of NES’s motion did not eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the emergency room physicians who treated Perez were independent contractors … . Although the physician agreement between NES and one of the physicians who treated Perez designated the physician an independent contractor, among other things, NES’s contract with Lutheran [the hospital] raises triable issues of fact regarding NES’s involvement in the training of the physicians with whom it contracted and the extent of NES’s obligation to participate in quality assurance and peer review activities and implement quality improvement plans … . Additionally, NES failed to submit any evidence regarding how the physicians with whom it contracted were paid … . Perez v NES Med. Servs. of N.Y., P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 02031, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sued the company which staffed the emergency room under a contract with the hospital. The staffing company moved for summary judgment arguing the treating physicians were independent contractors, not employees, and, therefore, the company was not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the physicians. The motion should not have been granted. The decision lays out the criteria for the independent-contractor versus employee analysis.

 

You might also like
SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE.
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL ON ICE, NO EVIDENCE CONTRACTOR CREATED OR EXACERBATED ICY CONDITION; FAILURE TO APPLY SALT NOT ENOUGH.
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE FOUR YEARS UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REFILED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF STANDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INCIDENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING OR INSPECTION PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LEAVES ON A STAIRWAY CONSTITUTED AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (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

BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT... IF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BY AEGIS WAS VALID, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE...