Personal Injury Update April – June 2022 – Part 3 of 3

Personal Injury Update April – June 2022 – Part 3 of 3

(Nontransitional) Prerecorded Audio (On Demand/Recorded-Audio)

Appropriate for Experienced Attorneys

Areas of Professional Practice: 3.5 CLE Credit Hours

Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Including the Summaries in the CLE Written Materials, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” in the “How to Use the New York Appellate Digest” Section on the Home Page.

This course organizes summaries of decisions by the New York State appellate courts (Appellate Division and Court of Appeals) released between April 1, 2022 and June 30, 2022 which address issues in “Personal Injury,” including Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Products Liability, Labor Law-Construction Law and Workers’ Compensation.

The “Personal Injury” decision-summaries posted weekly on the New York Appellate Digest website are organized in monthly Reversal Reports which are accessed in the “Update Service.” The monthly Reversal Reports comprise the written materials for these monthly CLE courses. The course consists of three parts, each with its own podcast page. Part 1 is based on the Personal Injury Reversal Report for April, 2022; Part 2 is based on the Reversal Report for May, 2022; and Part 3 is based on the Reversal Report for June 2022. The link to the June 2022 Reversal Report is below.

As you listen to the course, you will hear verification codes. After finishing Part 3 of the course, print and fill out the “Attorney Affirmation,” including the verification codes, your name, your signature, and the date you completed the course. Please also fill out the attached “Evaluation Survey” (the CLE Board requires that I collect and preserve the Evaluation Surveys). The links to the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” are below. Scan the “Attorney Affirmation” and the “Evaluation Survey” and email them as attachments to me, Bruce Freeman, at NewYorkAppellateDigest@gmail.com. I will email to you the completed “New York CLE Certificate of Attendance,” as an attachment, awarding you credit for the 3.5 credit-hour course. Or, if you wish to send and receive hard copies by regular mail, send the “Attorney Affirmation” and “Evaluation Survey” to New York Appellate Digest, LLC, 126 Colonial Village Road, Rochester, New York 14625 and make sure to include your return address.

Click on the links below for the written material for Part 3 of this course: Personal Injury Reversal Report June, 2022.

The media player for this course is at the bottom of the page.

Personal Injury Reversal Report June 2022

Attorney Affirmation Personal Injury Update April May June 2022

Evaluation Survey Personal Injury Update April May June 2022

Topics Covered in the “Personal Injury Reversal Report June 2022” (Part 3 of this Course) Are Described Below; The Numbers are the Page Numbers in the Reversal Report 

JUNE 2022 REVERSAL REPORT

ASSUMPTION OF RISK, SLIPPERY BASKETBALL COURT. 6

PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF SLIPPING ON THE BASKETBALL COURT WHICH WAS WET WITH CONDENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE RECURRING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT). 6

COURT OF CLAIMS, HARNESS RACING ACCIDENT. 7

THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION’S DUTIES TO INSPECT HORSES AND EQUIPMENT BEFORE A HARNESS RACE ARE PROPRIETARY, NOT GOVERMENTAL, IN NATURE; THEREFORE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES APPLY AND THE IMMUNITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE; DURING THE RACE A HORSE FELL AND CLAIMANT’S HORSE COLLIDED WITH THE FALLEN HORSE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE FALLEN HORSE’S EQUIPMENT AND WHETHER THE HORSE EXHIBITED INDICATIONS HE WAS LAME; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILTY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE; REGULATIONS RE: THE INSPECTION OF HORSES AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE IMPUTED (THIRD DEPT). 7

EXPERT DISCLOSURE, TREATING PHYSICIAN, THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS. 8

CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT). 8

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-1, FIREFIGHTERS, ARBITRATION. 9

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIREFIGHTER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A INJURY CLAIM SHOULD BE PROCESSED IS ARBITRABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 9

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A BENEFITS, FIREFIGHTERS. 11

A FIREFIGHTER INJURED ON THE JOB RETURNED TO THE JOB BUT COULD NOT WORK THE 10 TO 24 HOUR SHIFTS WHICH ARE THE “REGULAR DUTIES” OF A FIREFIGHTER; BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT OFFERED THE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT OF THE SHORTER SHIFTS OR LIGHT-DUTY WORK, SHE WAS ENITLTED TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT). 11

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS, SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE. 12

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO WORK ONLY ON GROUND LEVEL AND NOT TO USE STILTS, AND WHETHER THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED USE OF THE STILTS AFTER HE FELT THEM BECOME UNSTABLE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). 12

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FOUR OR FIVE INCHES. 13

PLAINTIFF FELT HIS ARM SNAP WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LIFT A 400 POUND ELEVATOR PLATFORM FOUR OR FIVE INCHES TO PLACE A PALLET JACK UNDER IT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). 13

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROXIMATE CAUSE. 14

IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). 14

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION. 15

HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION PRECLUDED THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER, A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE HOMEOWNER’S LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). 15

LANDLORD-TENANT, LIABILITY FOR SHOOTING. 16

ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CRIME, I.E., THE SHOOTING OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN DEFENDANTS’ BUILDING, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEABLE, THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DOOR SECURITY WAS DEFICIENT AND THEREFORE WAS A CONCURRENT FACTOR IN THE SHOOTING (SECOND DEPT). 16

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, BIRTH. 18

MOTHER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IF HER BABY WAS BORN ALIVE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE BABY WAS BORN ALIVE OR STILLBORN; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NEGLIGENCE, LIABILITY OF REHABILITATION SERVICE FOR RAPE AND KIDNAPPING BY CLIENT. 19

DEFENDANT REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT A PERSON UNDER ITS SUPERVISION AND CARE FROM HARMING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; PLAINTIFF WAS KIDNAPPED AND RAPED BY A PERSON WITH A VIOLENT PAST WHO WAS UNDER DEFENDANT’S CARE AND SUPERVISION (THIRD DEPT). 19

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NEGLIGENCE, PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL LIFE. 21

IN NEW YORK THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR “PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE” OR “WRONGFUL LIFE;” HERE MOTHER ALLEGED THE DRUG SHE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR EPILEPSY BEFORE SHE LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT CAUSED THE BABY TO BE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA (FIRST DEPT). 21

MENTAL CONDITION IN CONTROVERSY, COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION. 22

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLANTIFF TO APPEAR FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION (INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION [IME]) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HER MENTAL CONDITION IN CONTROVERSY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE (FIRST DEPT). 22

MUNICIPAL LAW, LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM. 23

THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SERVED ONLY FIVE DAYS LATE WHICH WAS DEEMED TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND A SHOWING OF THE ABSENCE OF PREJUDICE; THE CITY DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE; THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT FATAL; LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). 23

PRODUCTS LIABILITY, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION. 24

PLAINTIFF, A TEXAS RESIDENT WHO WAS A FLIGHT ATTENDANT FOR 30 YEARS WITH MONTHLY STAY-OVERS IN NEW YORK, DEMONSTRATED NEW YORK HAD LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED TALCUM POWDER PLAINTIFF USED; THE TALCUM POWDER ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S MESOTHELIOMA (FIRST DEPT). 24

SLIP AND FALL, ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 25

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY THAT HE DID NOT RECALL HOW OR WHERE HE SLIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT RECALL A FIGHT OR BEING HIT WERE FATAL TO THE SLIP AND FALL AND ASSAULT CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). 25

SLIP AND FALL, EMPLOYMENT LAW, INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION. 26

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S CONTRACTUAL INDEMNITY, COMMON-LAW INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). 26

SLIP AND FALL, EMPLOYMENT LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION. 27

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER OR THAT PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ASPECT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT). 27

SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF CAUSE. 29

DESPITE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SAY WHICH OF TWO CRACKS IN THE PAVEMENT CAUSED HIS FALL, THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED TO WITHSTAND SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT). 29

SLIP AND FALL, TREE WELLS. 30

UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LIABLE FOR THE CONDITION OF SIDEWALKS BUT NOT CITY OWNED TREE WELLS, UNLESS THEY AFFIRMATIVELY CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, NEGLIGENTLY REPAIR THE AREA, OR CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY A SPECIAL USE; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE TREE WELL, NOT THE SIDEWALK, AND NONE OF THE OTHER LIABILITY THEORIES APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). 30

SLIP AND FALL. 31

A FLATTENED CARDBOARD BOX ON THE FLOOR WAS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT). 31
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INSURANCE LAW, RESCISSION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, UNILATERAL MISTAKE. 32
IN THIS VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF ENTERED AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WHICH INDICATED THE AWARD WOULD BE BETWEEN $0 AND $50,000, BUT THE POLICY LIMITS WERE $100,000/300,000; THE UNILATERAL MISTAKE BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY RE: THE POLICY LIMITS WAS NOT INDUCED BY DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANT’S CARRIER, THEREFORE RESCISSION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY (SECOND DEPT). 32

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, JOINT TRIAL. 33

PLAINTIFF’S TWO SEPARATE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS SHOULD BE TRIED TOGETHER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INJURIES FROM THE FIRST ACCIDENT WERE EXACERBATED BY THE SECOND ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). 33

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW, RECKLESS DISREGARD, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, POLICE CHASE. 34

PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER THE POLICE ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY THE DISPATCHER OF THE CHASE, AND (2) WHETHER THE CHASE WAS A PROXIMATE OR CONCURRENT CAUSE OF PLAINTFFS’ ACCIDENT (THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH EITHER VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) (FIRST DEPT). 34

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, MUNICIPAL LAW. 35

IN THIS Y-INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, (1) THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE THAT OVERGROWN FOLIAGE BLOCKED LINES OF SIGHT; (2) QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING INADQUATE SIGNAGE AND NEGLIGENT ROADWAY DESIGN (THIRD DEPT). 35

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, INADEQUATE RECORD FOR APPEAL. 36

THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). 36

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU). 37

THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER A PRIOR ELBOW INJURY ADDED TO THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT SHOULDER INJURY; THE BOARD DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION (THIRD DEPT). 37

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU). 38

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD MISINTERPRETED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION 4 TO LIMIT SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG TO 10% (THIRD DEPT). 38