Brewer v. Jamaica Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brewer v. Jamaica Hospital

73 A.D.2d 851, 423 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9739

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 851 (Brewer v. Jamaica Hospital) 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

Brewer v. Jamaica Hospital, 73 A.D.2d 851, 423 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 7, 1979, granting defendant’s motion to obtain authorizations from plaintiff to review hospital and clinic records of plaintiff’s decedent for the period of two years preceding decedent’s death, but denying so much of the motion as sought to obtain doctors’ reports concerning the injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, so as to provide as follows: [852]*852Plaintiff is directed to furnish defendant with authorizations to obtain copies of hospital, clinic and doctors’ records of treatment to plaintiffs decedent at the hospitals and places specified in the notice and to produce any available doctors’ reports relevant to the injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed. The notice was given and the motion herein was made by defendant pursuant to CPLR 3121 to obtain authorizations to inspect relevant hospital and doctors’ records and for production of any existing doctors’ reports. Plaintiff, having instituted this malpractice action, has placed in issue the physical condition of the decedent (see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 292, 294; Newman v Searle & Co., 50 AD2d 902). Accordingly, the hospital records and records and reports of the treating physicians are proper subjects of disclosure (Greuling v Breakey, 56 AD2d 540; Moses v Woodbury, 54 AD2d 961). The request for disclosure need not be limited to the hospital confinement directly involved in this case (Greuling v Breakey, supra, pp 541-542; Myers v Schneider, 59 AD2d 736) or to any arbitrary period (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Greuling v Breakey, supra, pp 541-542). Moreover, plaintiffs failure to move for a protective order within five days after the service upon her of defendant’s notice constituted a waiver of any defects of deficiencies in the notice (see Koump v Smith, supra, p 299; Greuling v Breakey, supra, p 541; .Coffey v Orbachs, Inc., 22 AD2d 317). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 7, 1979, granting defendant’s motion to obtain authorizations from plaintiff to review hospital and clinic records of plaintiff’s decedent for the period of two years preceding decedent’s death, but denying so much of the motion as sought to obtain doctors’ reports concerning the injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, so as to provide as follows: [852]*852Plaintiff is directed to furnish defendant with authorizations to obtain copies of hospital, clinic and doctors’ records of treatment to plaintiffs decedent at the hospitals and places specified in the notice and to produce any available doctors’ reports relevant to the injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed. The notice was given and the motion herein was made by defendant pursuant to CPLR 3121 to obtain authorizations to inspect relevant hospital and doctors’ records and for production of any existing doctors’ reports. Plaintiff, having instituted this malpractice action, has placed in issue the physical condition of the decedent (see Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 292, 294; Newman v Searle & Co., 50 AD2d 902). Accordingly, the hospital records and records and reports of the treating physicians are proper subjects of disclosure (Greuling v Breakey, 56 AD2d 540; Moses v Woodbury, 54 AD2d 961). The request for disclosure need not be limited to the hospital confinement directly involved in this case (Greuling v Breakey, supra, pp 541-542; Myers v Schneider, 59 AD2d 736) or to any arbitrary period (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 NY2d 403; Greuling v Breakey, supra, pp 541-542). Moreover, plaintiffs failure to move for a protective order within five days after the service upon her of defendant’s notice constituted a waiver of any defects of deficiencies in the notice (see Koump v Smith, supra, p 299; Greuling v Breakey, supra, p 541; .Coffey v Orbachs, Inc., 22 AD2d 317). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Ross and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 851, 423 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-jamaica-hospital-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack