CARMEN POLANCO, plf-ap, v. MARY REED, M.D. def-res, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HEALTH CENTER, def

8662-8662A. CARMEN POLANCO, plf-ap, v. MARY REED, M.D. def-res, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HEALTH CENTER, def — Alpert, Slobin and Rubenstein, New York (Gary Slobin of counsel), for ap — Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Elliott J. Zucker of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered September 13, 2011, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents Mary Reed, M.D. and Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2011, which granted defendantsrespondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated. Appeal from the forgoing order, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8662-8662A. CARMEN POLANCO, plf-ap, v. MARY REED, M.D. def-res, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HEALTH CENTER, def — Alpert, Slobin and Rubenstein, New York (Gary Slobin of counsel), for ap — Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York (Elliott J. Zucker of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered September 13, 2011, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents Mary Reed, M.D. and Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 25, 2011, which granted defendantsrespondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated. Appeal from the forgoing order, dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In this medical malpractice appeal, defendants do not dispute that they departed from the accepted standard of care by incorrectly informing plaintiff that her April 9, 2007 PET scan was negative for recurrent cancer and not correcting that misinformation until November 2007. Defendants argue that the six month delay in notification did not cause plaintiff any injury. Defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Weingrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). However, the motion court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact requiring the denial of defendants’ motion and a trial. The issue of whether a doctor’s negligence is more “likely than not a proximate cause of [a plaintiff's] injury” is usually for the jury to decide (Stewart v. New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 207 AD2d 703,704 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 809 [1995]).

CARMEN POLANCO, plf-ap, v. MARY REED, M.D. def-res, MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HEALTH CENTER, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal