You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for battery alleging a medical procedure was performed without her consent:

“It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . Here, in moving under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), defendants attached all of the pleadings, which alleged, inter alia, that defendants “performed a procedure upon the Plaintiff while she was under general anesthesia without informing her or obtaining any consent, which conduct constituted a battery upon her.” Defendants also referenced and provided to the court the informed consent form executed by plaintiff that explicitly authorized the performance of a flexible sigmoidoscopy, but not a colonoscopy. The form further noted in relevant part that, “[i]f any unforeseen condition arises during the procedure calling for, in the physician’s judgment, additional procedures, treatments, or operations, [defendant is] authorize[d] . . . to do whatever he . . . deems advisable.” We conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently asserted a cause of action sounding in battery by alleging that she provided no consent to the performance of a colonoscopy … , and that the evidentiary submissions considered by the court, including the consent form, do not “establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action” sounding in battery … . McCarthy v Shah, 2018 NY Slip Op 04887, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, BATTERY, COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))/BATTERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department noted that the defendant’s (NYS’s) failure to plead a jurisdictional defect as a defense (defendant had not timely filed and served notice of claim) waived the defect. The claimant did not present expert evidence to support the medical malpractice claim and therefore did not demonstrate that any alleged deviation from the accepted standard of care was the proximate case of his injury. The claimant alleged a negligent failure to diagnose a urinary tract infection (UTI):

“To establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, a plaintiff must set forth (1) the standard of care in the locality where the treatment occurred, (2) that the defendant breached that standard of care, and (3) that the breach was the proximate cause of his or her injuries”… . Further, where, as here, the subject matter (UTIs) and treatment thereof are “not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons”… , the claimant must establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice through expert medical opinion … . Whitfield v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04773, Second Dept 6-27-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, FAILURE TO PLEAD A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS A DEFENSE WAIVED THE DEFECT; WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT OPINION, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT PROVED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted:

“It is well established that [a] verdict rendered in favor of a defendant may be successfully challenged as against the weight of the evidence only when the evidence so preponderated in favor of the plaintiff that it could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence”… . “Where a verdict can be reconciled with a reasonable view of the evidence, the successful party is entitled to the presumption that the jury adopted that view” … .

Here, there was sharply conflicting expert testimony with respect to whether plaintiff’s postoperative symptoms could have occurred without negligence on the part of defendant, and the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendants’ experts and reject the testimony of plaintiff’s expert … . We conclude that the court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as “the jury had ample basis to conclude that plaintiff’s postoperative condition was not attributable to any deviation from accepted community standards of medical practice by defendant” … , and thus the jury’s finding that defendant was not negligent was not “palpably irrational or wrong” … . Clark v Loftus, 2018 NY Slip Op 04473, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, MOTION TO, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the Education Law and Public Health Law did not prohibit the release of the identities of persons who participated in a quality assurance review involving plaintiff doctor:

Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit are based on [Peconic Bay Medical Center’s] alleged misrepresentations about the existence of an investigation and the filing of an AAR [adverse action report], and the AAR did not report plaintiff for malpractice but for resigning during an ongoing investigation … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs’ request to compel defendants to un-redact the identities of nonparty participants in the quality assurance review process should be granted. Education Law § 6527(3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m protect documents “prepared by or at the behest of” a quality assurance committee … . However, they do not protect the mere identities of participants. Brook v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04432, First Dept 6-14-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES OF NONPARTY PARTICIPANTS IN A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW INVOLVING PLAINTIFF DOCTOR (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the trial court properly prohibited cross examination of the plaintiff about his criminal history and plaintiff’s expert properly relied upon hearsay statements by plaintiff’s treating physician:

… [W]hile a civil litigant is granted broad authority to use the criminal convictions of a witness to impeach the credibility of that witness, the nature and extent of cross-examination, including with respect to criminal convictions, remains firmly within the discretion of the trial court … . …

It is well settled that ” opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness’ ” … . It is equally well settled, however, that an expert is permitted to offer opinion testimony based upon facts not in evidence where the material is ” of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion’ “… . “The professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule enables an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay, provided it is demonstrated to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession’ “… , and “provided that it does not constitute the sole or principal basis for the expert’s opinion” … . Tornatore v Cohen, 2018 NY Slip Op 04145, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL HISTORY (EVIDENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CROSS EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY PROPERLY PRECLUDED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, EXPERT OPINION PROPERLY RELIED UPON HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, announcing a new Third-Department rule governing expert witness disclosure in medical malpractice actions, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined plaintiffs are obligated to provide full disclosure of a prospective expert witness’s qualifications, even if the disclosure will identify the witness. Defendants may be entitled to a protective order prohibiting the intimidation or harassment of a witness whose identity has effectively been revealed by his or her qualifications:

Inasmuch as this state’s expert disclosure statute is already the most restrictive in the nation, there is no reason for this Court to continue to interpret the statute in a way that permits parties to severely limit the amount of information they provide regarding their expert witnesses.

Like the 2nd Department held in Thomas v Alleyne [302 AD2d 36], we conclude that our current standard is not only impractical, but contrary to the statutory language and “the salutary policy of encouraging full pretrial disclosure so as to advance the fundamental purpose of litigation, which is to ascertain the truth” … . Accordingly, we adopt that Court’s rule that parties in medical malpractice cases “will ordinarily be entitled to full disclosure of the qualifications of [an opponent’s] expert, [except for the expert’s name,] notwithstanding that such disclosure may permit such expert’s identification,” but a party may obtain a protective order under CPLR 3103 (a) by making a factual showing that there exists a reasonable probability, “under the special circumstances of a particular case, that a prospective expert medical witness would be subjected to intimidation or threats if his or her name were revealed before trial” … . Kanaly v DeMartino, 2018 NY Slip Op 04060, Third Dept 6-7-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCLOSURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT WITNESSES, DISCLOSURE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLOSURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT WITNESSES, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))/QUALIFICATIONS (EXPERT WITNESSES, ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined (1) the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about the quality of care provided by two of the defendants because he did not specialize in emergency medicine and didn’t indicate he had familiarized himself with the standard of care in that specialty, and (2) there was a question of fact whether the emergency exception applied to the general rule that a hospital is not vicariously liable for the treatment provided by private attending physicians:

” … [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiffs’ expert, who was board-certified in internal medicine and infectious disease, did not indicate in his affirmation that he had training in emergency medicine, or what, if anything, he did to familiarize himself with the standard of care for this specialty. …

“As a general rule, a hospital is not vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not its employee” … . However, “an exception to the general rule exists where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . Here, the hospital established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by its submission of the deposition testimony of the doctors and physician’s assistant involved in the plaintiff’s care, which indicated that they were not employees of the hospital … .

In opposition, however, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the hospital could be held vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of the individuals involved in the plaintiff’s care as independent contractors, based upon the emergency room exception … . Galluccio v Grossman, 2018 NY Slip Op 03664, Second Dept 5-23-18

​NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT))/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITAL (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EMERGENCY EXCEPTION, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT SPECIALIZE IN THE RELEVANT AREA OF MEDICINE, HIS AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, THERE WAS QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RULE A HOSPITAL IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY PRIVATE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted the argument plaintiff did not allege in the bill of particulars that defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the actions of a physician (Devlin) was raised for the first time in reply papers and, therefore, should not have been considered by the motion court. The Second Department went on to find that the hospital’s motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not vicariously liable for Devlin’s actions should not have been granted. Whether Devlin acted as an agent for the hospital depended upon written agreements which were not submitted with the motion papers:

The function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant, not to introduce new arguments or new grounds for the requested relief … . Since the plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to oppose the new argument in a surreply, the court should not have granted relief based upon that argument … .

… [T]he general rule is that a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the acts of a physician who is not an employee of the hospital, but is one of a group of independent contractors … . However, a hospital may be vicariously liable if a nonemployee physician acted as its agent or if it exercised control over the physician … . Here, Devlin was an intensivist employed by the defendant Nassau Chest Physicians, P.C. (hereinafter Nassau Chest Physicians), who cared for [plaintiff] in the Hospital’s intensive care unit after surgery was performed. She was the sole intensivist on duty for all four of the Hospital’s intensive care units during her shift. Devlin only worked at the Hospital; she did not work for Nassau Chest Physicians at any other site. The Hospital claimed that she was not under its control and not its agent. However, the Hospital’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians and Devlin’s relationship with Nassau Chest Physicians were governed by written agreements, and those written agreements were not submitted in support of the motion. Since the defendants failed to submit this or other evidence establishing, prima facie, that Devlin was not under the Hospital’s control and not its agent when she rendered care to Castro, they failed to demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Castro v Durban, 2018 NY Slip Op 03503, Second Dept 5-16-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY PAPERS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, VICARIOUS LIABILITY, ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS, ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the trial court in this medical malpractice action did not err in allowing the continued participation of the attorney for defendant hospital (AMH) after the action against the hospital had been dismissed. After the dismissal of the action against the hospital, the only liability the hospital faced was vicarious liability for the actions of its physician employee, who was represented by another attorney. The Third Department further found that the plaintiffs’ request, made for the first time at trial, to call an expert to establish, by cell phone and tower information (GIS), the location of a physician who had been called to assist at the hospital was properly denied:

Following the dismissal of all claims of direct negligence asserted against AMH, plaintiffs renewed their motion to have the role of AMH’s counsel limited. While the dismissal of the direct negligence claims rendered AMH’s potential liability purely vicarious in nature, we are unable to conclude that Supreme Court’s refusal to limit the role of AMH’s counsel during the remainder of the trial to essentially that of a spectator was in error. Because AMH’s liability would be determined by the jury’s findings in relation to plaintiffs’ claims of negligence against Olsen [its physician-employee], AMH was entitled to participate in the efforts to defeat those claims … . Supreme Court promised to exert control over the cross-examination of the remaining witnesses by AMH’s counsel, indicating its intent to prevent any attempt by AMH to “reiterate or to plow ground that has already been plowed by one side or the other,” and the record reflects that counsel’s cross-examination of these witnesses, if any, was limited and dealt primarily with different material than that explored on direct examination. The balanced approach taken by the court served to ensure defendants’ valued right to representation by counsel of their choosing while also protecting plaintiffs against the possibility of unduly cumulative and duplicative proof … . Under these circumstances, we find no “clear abuse of discretion” in the course of action taken by Supreme Court nor any prejudice to plaintiffs as a result thereof … . * * *

… [P]laintiffs first notified defendants of their intention to call a GIS expert more than three years after defendants’ respective demands for expert disclosure and during the midst of the trial. Notably, [the physcian’s] cell phone number was provided to plaintiffs during a pretrial deposition more than a year and a half earlier and, thus, plaintiffs possessed the essential facts necessary to investigate the matter — and, if necessary, to retain an expert — long before trial. Plaintiffs’ claim that they did not realize the significance of the calls, and thus the need to subpoena the phone records, until shortly before trial did not, as Supreme Court found, constitute good cause for the delay … . Moreover, we agree with Supreme Court that, given the complex and technical issues presented by the proposed GIS testimony, the mid-trial disclosure of this expert would have prejudiced defendants … . Lasher v Albany Mem. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03402, Third Dept 5-10-18

​ATTORNEYS (ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXPERT WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ATTORNEYS, TRIAL, ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PURELY VICARIOUS ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH THE HOSPITAL AND THE EMPLOYEE-PHYSICIAN WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (EXPERT WITNESSES, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT WITNESSES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ MID-TRIAL REQUEST TO CALL AN EXPERT WITNESS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

,

RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defendant resident physicians’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s bowel was perforated during an emergency caesrean section. The residents did not exercise any independent judgment during the surgery and were not required to intervene in the treatment by the attending physician (Dr. Balaya):

Dr. Bayala’s affidavit also addressed the care provided by the three resident physicians. Dr. Balaya averred that the resident physicians were all under his supervision and direction and, thus, they never exercised independent judgment or made an independent decision with respect to plaintiff’s care or treatment … . In addition, Dr. Balaya averred that none of the resident physicians could be held liable for failure to intervene in plaintiff’s care and treatment on the ground that his alleged deviations from normal medical practice were so great that such intervention was warranted … . …

Plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion failed to raise an issue of fact whether any of the resident physicians exercised independent medical judgment in plaintiff’s care or treatment, or neglected to intervene in plaintiff’s care or treatment where the attending physician’s directions greatly deviated from normal medical practice … . Groff v Kaleida Health, 2018 NY Slip Op 03249, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RESIDENT PHYSICIANS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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