You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW...
, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, in a matter of first impression, determined defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to authorize an ex parte interview of the nonparty physician’s assistant (Molina) who treated plaintiff after her slip and fall was properly denied. Defendants sought to interview Molina about plaintiff’s statement concerning the cause of her fall, not about her medical treatment. The Second Department reasoned that allowing questions about the cause of the fall would constitute an improper expansion of the Court of Appeals ruling in Arons v Jutkowitz, 9 NY3d 393:

The Court of Appeals in Arons v Jutkowitz did not explicitly address the issue involved in this case, where the defendants’ counsel intends to interview a physician assistant about the reason that the plaintiff tripped, rather than about the plaintiff’s injury or her medical condition. Instead, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Arons v Jutkowitz distinguished between information about a medical condition that a plaintiff has placed in issue by commencing the action and information about other unrelated medical conditions which would still be protected under HIPAA. Furthermore, Arons v Jutkowitz involved three separate actions, all of which concerned allegations of medical malpractice, where causation is related to and intertwined with the issues of the patient’s medical condition and treatment … . Because the Court of Appeals did not explicitly rule on whether an Arons authorization would apply to information about causation and liability, where, as here, the plaintiff’s alleged injury was not caused by medical treatment but instead was caused by a trip and fall accident, granting the subject branch of the defendants’ motion would result in an extension of the scope of Arons. Yan v Kalikow Mgt., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03817, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: Under Arons v Jutdowitz, 9 NY3d 292, a defendant in a personal injury case may be given permission to interview nonparty medical personnel about medical conditions plaintiff has put in controversy, as opposed to medical conditions protected by HIPAA. Here defendants sought to extend that ruling to compel plaintiff to allow an ex parte interview of the treating physician’s assistant concerning plaintiff’s statements about the cause of her slip and fall. The Second Department refused to so extend the Arons ruling.

 

You might also like
ACCIDENT REPORT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT NOTIFY THE CITY OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS, THEREFORE LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
Failure to Serve Superintendent of Schools in Accordance with RPTL Required Dismissal of Property Tax Certiorari Proceeding
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.
OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE A SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEFECT IS TRIVIAL; HOWEVER, HERE THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE OPINION OF A HUMAN FACTORS EXPERT (WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS) DID NOT SUPPORT SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THE DEFECT IS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENHANCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BASED ON A POSITIVE DRUG TEST; DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT AS IT WAS DESCRIBED ON THE RECORD BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE RESIDENTIAL DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS WHAT THE PLEA AGREEMENT CALLED FOR (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER SEEKING TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN THIS SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS PROCEEDING (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

A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGES CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE DAMAGES... ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION...