You are here: / / MALPRACTICE TREATING THE INITIAL MEDICAL INJURY AT ANOTHER HOSPITAL IS...
, ,

MALPRACTICE TREATING THE INITIAL MEDICAL INJURY AT ANOTHER HOSPITAL IS A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE INITIAL MEDICAL INJURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the medical malpractice action, noted that malpractice in treating an injury is a foreseeable consequence of the injury. Plaintiff’s decedent was injured during surgery and the injury was subsequently treated at another hospital (The Valley Hospital). Defendants’ expert opined that a delay in treatment at The Valley Hospital was the cause of decedent’s injuries:

Although defendants’ expert opined that the cause of decedent’s injuries was negligent delay by The Valley Hospital, any such delay “does not absolve defendant[s] from liability because there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury” … . Malpractice in treating an injury is a foreseeable consequence of that injury, which does not supersede the causal role of the initial tort … . Therefore, regarding these injuries, defendants’ expert “never actually opined that [decedent’s] claimed injuries were not causally related to defendants’ alleged malpractice” … . Murphy v Chinatown Cardiology, P.C., 2023 NY Slip Op 05321, First Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: If the initial medical injury leads to subsequent treatment at another hospital, any malpractice in the subsequent treatment is a foreseeable consequence of the initial medical injury.

 

You might also like
IN A COMPLEX PATERNITY CASE SPANNING EIGHT YEARS ORDER PRECLUDING CHILD FROM ESTABLISHING ESTOPPEL AND FINDING PETITIONER HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY AND VISITATION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED TO TIME-SERVED BASED UPON HIS HEALTH (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 AND 241.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONTEST THE APPEALS AND WILL NOT PURSUE THE LITIGATION, THE APPEALS ARE NOT MOOT BECAUSE THE ORDER MAY AFFECT RELATED ACTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS; THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BROUGHT BEFORE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
A FALL OF 2O TO 25 FEET FROM A RAMP USED TO TRANSPORT MATERIALS IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST 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

​ THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD... A JUDGE CANNOT ENTER A JUDGMENT WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE ORDER; HERE THE...