From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frobose v. Weiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 23, 2005
19 A.D.3d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6424.

June 23, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 4, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Timothy R. Capowski of counsel), for Bernard Weiner, M.D. and Wellness Medical Associates, P.C., appellants.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus, New York (Deborah Del Sordo of counsel), for Montefiore Dialysis Center, appellant.

Bowman Vlachos, New York (David B. Bowman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Sullivan and Sweeny, JJ.


As between plaintiff and appellants physician and his medical practice, the parties' conflicting expert affidavits raise issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, appellants departed from the prevailing standard of care by not examining plaintiff's decedent immediately upon being advised by appellant dialysis center that decedent had contracted an infection; whether, upon examining decedent, appellants departed from the prevailing standard of care by not removing decedent's Tessio catheter if no other source of the infection was apparent, administering antibiotic therapy and monitoring antibiotic blood levels; whether such inaction contributed to decedent's endocarditis; and whether endocarditis contributed to decedent's death. We reject appellants' argument that plaintiff's expert is unqualified and that his opinion lacks evidentiary support and is speculative. As between plaintiff and appellant dialysis center, the parties' conflicting expert affidavits raise issues of fact as to whether, inter alia, appellant's staff departed from the prevailing standard of care by not immediately informing decedent's physician that decedent had contracted an infection, or arranging for the immediate removal of the Tessio catheter if no other source of the infection was apparent; and whether the three-day delay in so informing decedent's physician contributed to her endocarditis, and whether endocarditis contributed to decedent's death ( see Martinez v. Tsung, 14 AD3d 399, 400).


Summaries of

Frobose v. Weiner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 23, 2005
19 A.D.3d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Frobose v. Weiner

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM FROBOSE, Respondent, v. BERNARD WEINER, M.D., et al., Appellants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 23, 2005

Citations

19 A.D.3d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
796 N.Y.S.2d 614

Citing Cases

Unger v. Stiber

Therefore, Dr. Subramanyam and the P.C.'s motion for summary judgment must be denied. See, Prigorac v.…

Rivera v. St. Vincent's Hospital

These conflicting opinions raise issues of fact as to whether defendant departed from the standard of care…