Cintron v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue Hospitals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cintron v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue Hospitals

193 A.D.2d 551, 597 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 25, 1993·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered December 31, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent Dr. Gilbert Ortiz’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In those cases in which this Court has found a physician-patient relationship between an "on call” attending physician and a "service” patient (Chang v Frigeri, 176 AD2d 643; Dillon v Silver, 134 AD2d 159), treatment was either required by hospital rules or in fact undertaken by the physician. Here, it is undisputed that the rules and custom of the particular hospital required only that the "on call” physician consult with the attending physicians. This defendant-respondent did when, advised by phone that labor had become arrested, he concurred that a Caesarean section should be performed immediately. Plaintiff does not argue that this advice was unsound, and the argument that he does make—that defendant was under a duty to attend this mother in the hospital after giving this advice—is without merit (Kleinert v Begum, 144 AD2d 645). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered December 31, 1991, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent Dr. Gilbert Ortiz’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In those cases in which this Court has found a physician-patient relationship between an "on call” attending physician and a "service” patient (Chang v Frigeri, 176 AD2d 643; Dillon v Silver, 134 AD2d 159), treatment was either required by hospital rules or in fact undertaken by the physician. Here, it is undisputed that the rules and custom of the particular hospital required only that the "on call” physician consult with the attending physicians. This defendant-respondent did when, advised by phone that labor had become arrested, he concurred that a Caesarean section should be performed immediately. Plaintiff does not argue that this advice was unsound, and the argument that he does make—that defendant was under a duty to attend this mother in the hospital after giving this advice—is without merit (Kleinert v Begum, 144 AD2d 645). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cintron v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue Hospitals, 193 A.D.2d 551, 597 N.Y.S.2d 705, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

193 A.D.2d 551 (Cintron v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue Hospitals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related