Braun v. Lewis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braun v. Lewis

117 A.D.3d 439, 985 N.Y.S.2d 71

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 439 (Braun v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Braun v. Lewis, 117 A.D.3d 439, 985 N.Y.S.2d 71 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered August 20, 2013, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

“A defendant may be held liable for ordinary negligence upon his or her failure to communicate significant medical findings to a patient or her treating physician” (Mosezhnik v Berenstein, 33 AD3d 895, 898 [2d Dept 2006]; see Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273, 274 [1st Dept 1998]). Here, on a prior appeal, plaintiffs medical malpractice claims were dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, but we declined to dismiss plaintiffs common-law negligence claim since nothing in the record indicated that defendant doctor forwarded the pathology reports of decedent’s colonoscopies to her primary gastroenterologist (99 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2012]). Discovery has since taken place and the record is clear that the reports were indeed forwarded.

Accordingly, there is no viable negligence claim against defendants.

Concur—Gonzalez, F.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered August 20, 2013, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

“A defendant may be held liable for ordinary negligence upon his or her failure to communicate significant medical findings to a patient or her treating physician” (Mosezhnik v Berenstein, 33 AD3d 895, 898 [2d Dept 2006]; see Yaniv v Taub, 256 AD2d 273, 274 [1st Dept 1998]). Here, on a prior appeal, plaintiffs medical malpractice claims were dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, but we declined to dismiss plaintiffs common-law negligence claim since nothing in the record indicated that defendant doctor forwarded the pathology reports of decedent’s colonoscopies to her primary gastroenterologist (99 AD3d 574 [1st Dept 2012]). Discovery has since taken place and the record is clear that the reports were indeed forwarded.

Accordingly, there is no viable negligence claim against defendants.

Concur—Gonzalez, F.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 439, 985 N.Y.S.2d 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braun-v-lewis-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack