Datiz v. Shoob

New York Court of Appeals

Datiz v. Shoob

522 N.E.2d 1047, 71 N.Y.2d 867, 527 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 206

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 522 N.E.2d 1047 (Datiz v. Shoob) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Datiz v. Shoob, 522 N.E.2d 1047, 71 N.Y.2d 867, 527 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 206 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It is generally true that the mere referral of a patient by one physician to another, without more, does not render the referring doctor vicariously liable for the negligence of the treating physician (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535; Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79; Graddy v New York Med. Coll., 19 AD2d 426, 429, mot to dismiss appeal denied 13 NY2d 1175; Nisenholtz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 126 Misc 2d 658, 663). Here, however, there is evidence in the record from which the jury could have concluded that defendant — the referring pediatrician — had been independently negligent in diagnosing the infant plaintiff’s condition, and that this misdiagnosis constituted a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. [869]*869This being so, defendant, as the initial wrongdoer, cannot escape liability merely by showing that the subsequent treating physician to whom plaintiff was referred was also negligent (see, Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 310; Suria v Shiftman, 67 NY2d 87, 98). We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Dillon

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It is generally true that the mere referral of a patient by one physician to another, without more, does not render the referring doctor vicariously liable for the negligence of the treating physician (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535; Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79; Graddy v New York Med. Coll., 19 AD2d 426, 429, mot to dismiss appeal denied 13 NY2d 1175; Nisenholtz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 126 Misc 2d 658, 663). Here, however, there is evidence in the record from which the jury could have concluded that defendant — the referring pediatrician — had been independently negligent in diagnosing the infant plaintiff’s condition, and that this misdiagnosis constituted a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. [869]*869This being so, defendant, as the initial wrongdoer, cannot escape liability merely by showing that the subsequent treating physician to whom plaintiff was referred was also negligent (see, Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 310; Suria v Shiftman, 67 NY2d 87, 98). We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Dillon

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 N.E.2d 1047, 71 N.Y.2d 867, 527 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/datiz-v-shoob-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack