You are here: / / GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD...
, ,

GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD BEEN REMOVED YEARS BEFORE; THE DOCTORS APPARENTLY DID NOT REVIEW THE AVAIABLE MEDICAL RECORDS; THE RADIOLOGIST DID NOT DISCOVER THAT THE GALLBLADDER WAS ABSENT; THE DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment which had been awarded to an internist (Patil), a surgeon (Jung), and a radiologist (Opsha). Plaintiff underwent gallbladder surgery, but her gallbladder had already been removed. The medical record reflected the prior removal:

The plaintiff’s expert opined that Patil departed from the accepted standard of care and contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to review the plaintiff’s medical records maintained by SIPP, which indicated that the plaintiff previously had her gallbladder removed. …

At his deposition, Jung testified that, before the surgery, he was not aware that the plaintiff had a previous cholecystectomy and became aware that “[t]here was no gallbladder” … surgery. He admitted that he “looked at” Patil’s notes and reviewed the ultrasound report. Further, although he had access to [the] medical records, he did not recall if he reviewed the plaintiff’s medical chart prior to the surgery, but “might have looked at something.” Jung admitted that, other than the primary care physician’s report and the radiological report, it was “not routine” for him to “look into other documents and charts for a patient.” …

Opsha’s expert failed to explain the basis for his conclusion as to how Opsha detected a gallbladder in his review of the ultrasound and made findings in his report regarding the plaintiff’s gallbladder when that organ had been removed years earlier … . Ruiz v Opsha, 2021 NY Slip Op 01796, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE WAS THE NOTE SHE SIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
Gun Found In Juvenile’s Shoe (After Juvenile Was Told to Remove His Shoes) Should Have Been Suppressed—Juvenile Could Not Be Arrested and Detained for a Violation (Disorderly Conduct Is Not a Crime) and Nothing More than a Frisk Is Justified During a Temporary Detention Pending the Arrival of a Juvenile’s Parents
FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S ILLNESS WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ORAL ARGUMENT, MERITORIOUS ACTION DEMONSTRATED, FIRST MOTION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SECOND MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (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

THE FEDERAL CONSPIRACY-TO-DEAL-IN-FIREARMS STATUTE HAS DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAN... PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF THE COSTS OF...