You are here: / Negligence
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether a resident exercised independent judgment in this medical malpractice case, making the resident and his employer (the hospital) potentially liable. Plaintiff’s decedent was intoxicated when given Valium:

Plaintiff’s decedent was brought into St. Barnabas Hospital by the police in an intoxicated and agitated condition. He was then chemically sedated with Valium. Two and one-half hours later, he “flatlined,” and, while resuscitative efforts were made, he did not awaken and was declared “brain dead” four days later.

Appellants contend that Dr. McGrath cannot be held liable for medical malpractice because, as a resident, he did not exercise independent medical judgment when he chose the type and dosage of sedative to use on decedent. However, the deposition testimony of the attending physician, defendant Dr. Rao, raised an issue of fact as to whether Dr. McGrath was permitted to, and in fact did, exercise independent medical judgment in deciding on the amount and type of sedation to administer, so that he may be held liable, and St. Barnabas Hospital may be held vicariously liable … . Burnett-Joseph v McGrath, 2018 NY Slip Op 01137, First Dept 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/RESIDENTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))

,

ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this negligent elevator-maintenance case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent had an asthma attack and suffered cardiac arrest in her apartment. When moving plaintiff’s decedent to an ambulance, the building elevator malfunctioned and stopped for at least several minutes. The NYCHA did not demonstrate that the elevator was in good working order or that the NYCHA had no notice the elevator malfunctioned. However, the NYCHA was able to demonstrate the elevator malfunction was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death. The evidence supported the conclusion death occurred in the apartment:

… NYCHA presented unrefuted evidence demonstrating that the decedent’s cardiac rhythm was asystole, a dire form of cardiac arrest in which the heart stops beating and there is no electrical activity in the heart, and that she showed no signs of life in the hour between the arrival of emergency personnel and her transfer into the elevator, despite the emergency responders’ continuous resuscitative efforts. Furthermore, NYCHA’s medical expert stated that “[t]he prolonged and unsuccessful resuscitative course in an asystolic patient is associated with an extremely poor outcome” and that “the decedent’s obesity made resuscitative efforts more difficult and further reduced [her] likelihood of survival.” Thus, he opined, “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty[,]. .. the outcome for the decedent would [not] have changed had the transport time within the elevator been shorter.”

By these facts and its expert’s opinion, NYCHA demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the stoppage of its elevator, and resulting delay of the decedent’s arrival at the hospital, were not a proximate cause of the decedent’s death. Lebron v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01116, First Dept 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATORS (NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD-TENANT, ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (ELEVATORS, NEGLIGENCE, ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/PROXIMATE CAUSE (ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION, LANDLORD-TENANT,  ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT HAD SUFFERED CARDIAC ARREST BEFORE SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ELEVATOR, HOUSING AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined that plaintiff had raised a question of fact about whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this medical malpractice action, despite a 30-month period between visits. Decision holding that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations precludes the application of the continuous treatment doctrine should not be followed:

Plaintiff saw defendant over the course of four years, underwent two surgeries at his hand, and saw no other doctor for her shoulder during this time. She returned to him after the thirty-month gap, discussed yet a third surgery with him, and accepted his referral to his partner only because defendant was no longer performing such surgeries. Plaintiff’s testimony regarding feeling discouraged with defendant’s treatment does not demonstrate as a matter of law that she never intended to return to his care; in fact, her testimony reveals that she considered defendant her only doctor during this time. Nor does the fact that defendant repeatedly told plaintiff she should return “as needed” foreclose a finding that the parties anticipated further treatment. Notably, Plaintiff’s injury was a chronic, long-term condition which both plaintiff and defendant understood to require continued care. Each of plaintiff’s visits to defendant over the course of seven years were “for the same or related illnesses or injuries, continuing after the alleged acts of malpractice” … . As to the 30-month period between visits, we have previously held that a gap in treatment longer than the statute of limitations “is not per se dispositive of defendant’s claim that the statute has run” … . To the extent that lower courts have held to the contrary … , those cases should not be followed. Lohnas v Luzi, 2018 NY Slip Op 01114, CtApp 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, DESPITE A 30 MONTH PERIOD BETWEEN VISITS (CT APP))

, ,

CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two partial dissenting opinions, determined the city was not a third-party beneficiary of a contract between the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) and defendant architects (Perkins) and the negligence cause of action (professional malpractice) by DASNY against Perkins was duplicative of the the breach of contract cause of action. Perkins had contracted with DASNY to construct a building. During excavation a neighboring building, sidewalks, sewers, etc. settled. The building gradually settled about eight inches. The majority explained when a tort action, in addition to a breach of contract action, is viable in the context of architectural malpractice:

With respect to construction contracts, we have generally required express contractual language stating that the contracting parties intended to benefit a third party by permitting that third party “to enforce [a promisee’s] contract with another” … . In the absence of express language, “[s]uch third parties are generally considered mere incidental beneficiaries” … . This rule reflects the particular nature of construction contracts and the fact that — as is the case here — there are often several contracts between various entities, with performance ultimately benefitting all of the entities involved. * * *

… [T]here are circumstances where a professional architect may be subject to a tort claim for failure to exercise due care in the performance of contractual obligations. In seeking to “disentangl[e] tort and contract claims,” we focused in Sommer both on potential catastrophic consequences of a failure to exercise due care and on the nature of the injury, the manner in which it occurred, and the resulting harm (79 NY2d at 552). We distinguished between the situation where the harm was an “abrupt, cataclysmic occurrence” not contemplated by the contracting parties and one where the plaintiff was essentially seeking enforcement of contract rights (79 NY2d at 552). Here, the … building settled during the course of several months, damaging adjacent structures. However, even if any “abrupt” or “catastrophic” consequences either could have or did result from Perkins’ alleged negligence, the fact remains that the only damages alleged appear to have been within the contemplation of the parties under the contract — and … are identical for both claims. Put another way, there was no injury alleged here that a separate negligence claim would include that is not already encompassed in DASNY’s contract claim. Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y. v Samson Constr. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 01115, CtApp 2-15-18

CONTRACT LAW (CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY, CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE, CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))/ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE (CITY WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NYS AND DEFENDANT ARCHITECTS, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE ARCHITECTS WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP))

, ,

STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should have been denied. The evidence of a storm in progress was insufficient. The climatological analysis report submitted in the reply papers should not have been considered. There was no evidence when the sidewalk was last inspected prior to the fall:

… [T]he defendants submitted a copy of the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition, at which she testified that light rain began to fall about 15 minutes prior to her accident, and that no precipitation fell the day before the accident. The defendants also submitted a copy of the transcript of the deposition of the office manager [the occupant of the abutting property], who testified that she had no recollection of the weather conditions on the day of the accident. The office manager also did not know when the sidewalk was last inspected or what it looked like within a reasonable time prior to the accident. The defendants also submitted video footage and screen shots from a security camera, but this evidence was not probative because it did not clearly depict the surface where the plaintiff slipped. Finally, the defendants submitted a climatological analysis report which was not signed and notarized, and therefore not admissible … .

The defendants submitted a signed and notarized climatological analysis report with their reply papers. However, the Supreme Court should not have considered that report, as it was improperly submitted for the first time with the reply papers … . Brandimarte v Liat Holding Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01042, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REPLY PAPERS, STORM IN PROGRESS EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE INSUFFICIENT, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s (CVS’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case was properly denied. CVS did not demonstrate that it made no efforts to clear the sidewalk and that it did not exacerbate the dangerous condition:

CVS failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the second third-party complaint and all cross claims asserted against it. CVS failed to make a prima facie showing that it made no efforts to clear snow and ice from the sidewalk on which the plaintiff fell prior to the accident. Further, CVS failed to make a prima facie showing that any snow and ice removal efforts undertaken by it or by persons on its behalf did not exacerbate the hazardous condition which allegedly contributed to the plaintiff’s accident … . Hurk-McLeod v Slope Park Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01047, Second Dept 2-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (SIDEWALKS, TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the hospital’s (Crouse Hospital’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The defendant doctor was not a hospital employee and no hospital employee was named in the complaint or bill of particulars. The plaintiff, in answering the hospital’s summary judgment motion, claimed for the first time that two nurses were negligent. That new theory of recovery could not defeat the motion:

​

Following discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, contending that the physician defendant was not its employee and that the hospital therefore could not be held vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. In opposing the motion, plaintiff did not address the hospital’s contention with respect to the physician defendant’s employment status and instead argued for the first time that two of the hospital’s nurses were negligent and that the hospital was vicariously liable for their actions. In our view, that is a new theory of recovery and thus could not be used by plaintiff to defeat the hospital’s motion … . We note that plaintiff did not move to amend the bill of particulars to allege that the hospital was vicariously liable for the nurses’ negligence. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not dispute that the hospital was not vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the physician defendant, there was no basis to deny the motion, which we now grant. DeMartino v Kronhaus, 2018 NY Slip Op 00974, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ANSWERING PAPERS,  PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION OF A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN THE PAPERS ANSWERING DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice against the resident (O’Donnell) who assisted the plaintiff’s surgeon (Weise) should have been dismissed. Although the resident severed a nerve during the bone drilling procedure, the resident was under the supervision of the surgeon and exercised no independent judgment. Therefore the action against the resident and the hospital (Crouse Hospital), as the resident’s employer, should have been dismissed:

​

It is well settled that a “resident who assists a doctor during a medical procedure, and who does not exercise any independent medical judgment, cannot be held liable for malpractice so long as the doctor’s directions did not so greatly deviate from normal practice that the resident should be held liable for failing to intervene” … . Even where a resident “play[s] an active role in [plaintiff’s] procedure,” the resident cannot commit malpractice unless he or she was shown to have exercised some ” independent medical judgment’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff was Wiese’s patient, and Wiese determined the type of surgery to be performed on plaintiff. The deposition testimony of O’Donnell and Wiese establishes that O’Donnell was acting as a resident under Wiese’s direction and supervision during the procedure. Indeed, Wiese testified at his deposition and averred in his affidavit that he supervised O’Donnell’s selection of the location and angle of the drill, and that he made the decision to stop drilling. We therefore conclude that O’Donnell and Crouse Hospital met their burden on the motion by establishing that O’Donnell did not exercise independent medical judgment with respect to his operation of the drill, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact … . Blendowski v Wiese, 2018 NY Slip Op 00973, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff lacrosse player’s action was not barred by a waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff was in a ground ball drill when a coach through a ball at her head, injuring her. The coach’s act was arguably grossly negligent, reckless or intentional, and therefore not covered by the waiver or the doctrine of assumption of the risk:

​

Here, plaintiff’s complaint and affidavit include allegations that the actions of defendants were grossly negligent and extremely reckless. Contrary to defendants’ contention, the written waiver does not bar plaintiff’s action inasmuch as a waiver is not enforceable with respect to allegations of grossly negligent conduct … .

​

… [I]t is well settled that a person who voluntarily participates in a recreational activity such as lacrosse “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation”… . “Such a person, however, will not assume the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, nor will a claim be barred where the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent’ in the activity” … . Tauro v Gait, 2018 NY Slip Op 00952, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK  (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT)/WAIVER (LACROSSE INJURY, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))/LACROSSE (ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the assumption of the risk defense applied in this boating accident case. Plaintiff was in a beginner’s sailing program. Her boat capsized and she was struck by the boom when she attempt to right it. Defendants had not provided any capsize-recovery training:

​

“The assumption of [the] risk doctrine applies as a bar to liability where a consenting participant in sporting or recreational activities is aware of the risks; has an appreciation of the nature of the risks; and voluntarily assumes the risks’ “… . “However, the doctrine of primary assumption of [the] risk will not serve as a bar to liability if the risk is unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased” … . Here, even assuming, arguendo, that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in sailing, we conclude that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with sailing by failing to provide any capsize recovery training to plaintiff and by letting plaintiff sail on the lake under the weather conditions present on the day of the accident … . Ulin v Hobart & William Smith Colls., 2018 NY Slip Op 00985, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

NEGLIGENCE (SAILING, ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (SAILING, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (FOURTH DEPT))/SAILING (ASSUMPTION OF RISK, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING TO RIGHT A CAPSIZED BOAT, DEFENDANTS PROVIDED NO CAPSIZE-RECOVERY TRAINING (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