[Download] "Linda D. Nicholas v. C. H. J. Reason Et Al." by Supreme Court of New York # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Linda D. Nicholas v. C. H. J. Reason Et Al.
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 13, 1981
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 63 KB

Description

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted as to all defendants. Memorandum: Plaintiff, Linda D. Nicholas, while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle received a severely broken left leg in an accident. She was hospitalized for 22 weeks in Newark-Wayne Community Hospital from August 4, 1973 until January 16, 1974. While confined there she was treated by Drs. Reason, Duffner and Reeves, the defendants. She instituted the instant medical malpractice action which was dismissed by the trial court as against Drs. Duffner and Reeves upon their motion at the close of plaintiffs proof. The case went to the jury solely against Dr. Reason which returned a no cause for action in his favor. To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant movant has the burden of showing that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case (4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 4401.05). The plaintiffs evidence is accepted as true (Siegel, New York Practice, § 402, p 529) and plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the most favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from such evidence (Parvi v City of Kingston, 41 N.Y.2d 553, 554; Sagorsky v Malyon, 307 NY 584, 586; Tripi v Stillwell, 22 A.D.2d 759). Guided by these principles, the court may grant the motion only if there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff as against the moving defendants (Siegel, New York Practice, § 402, p 529; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 4401.05). Thus, for defendant doctors Duffner and Reeves to have been entitled to judgment as a matter of law, they were required to show that plaintiff had not proved, prima facie, that they failed to exercise such reasonable care and diligence in their treatment of her as would be expected of the average member of the medical profession in the locality at the time of the treatment (see Pike v Honsinger, 155 NY 201, 209-210; Twitchell v MacKay, 78 A.D.2d 125, 128; Hale v State of New York, 53 A.D.2d 1025), or that she failed to prove "proximate cause" which the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action, as in any negligence action, is required to prove (Kletnieks v Brookhaven Mem. Assn., 53 A.D.2d 169, 176). In that connection Dr. Finkel, a certified specialist in generalized orthopedics, testified that he examined plaintiffs complete hospital records from Newark-Wayne Community Hospital and Genesee Hospital, as well as the records of Dr. Miller who took over plaintiffs treatment on January 16, 1974 when plaintiff was transferred to Genesee Hospital. He stated he was familiar with the standard of care in 1973 and 1974 for the treatment of injuries such as plaintiff incurred. He "[believed] that there was a divergence from acceptable medical standards in plaintiffs treatment between August, 1973 and January, 1974." The condition reported by Dr. Miller on January 16, 1974 -- nonunion of the bone, areas of skin loss over the pedicle flap, areas of dead and necrotic bone, and drainage from the wound -- was, he believed, the result of that deviation. While the record reflects that Dr. Finkels testimony on direct was somewhat general, his testimony on cross-examination and redirect was more specific and sufficient to establish the elements of malpractice against these two defendants (cf. Ward v Kovacs, 55 A.D.2d 391, 397). Consequently, there were issues of fact with respect to defendants Duffner and Reeves which required a determination by the jury (see, e.g., [84 A.D.2d 915 Page 916]

PDF Ebook Download "Linda D. Nicholas v. C. H. J. Reason Et Al." Online ePub Kindle