De Simone v. Lutheran Medical Center

34 A.D.2d 660, 310 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5121
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 13, 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 660 (De Simone v. Lutheran Medical Center) 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
De Simone v. Lutheran Medical Center, 34 A.D.2d 660, 310 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injury, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 12, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and, inter alia, ordered an assessment of damages. Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion denied. The injured plaintiff, Mrs. De Simone, claims to have been given a blood transfusion of the wrong type blood while in the defendant hospital. Plaintiffs rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitwr, but it is well established that the inferences created by this doctrine are for the triers of the fact (George Foltis, Inc. v. City of New York, 287 N. Y. 108; Benson v. Bohack Food Markets, 33 A D 2d 908). In addition, Special Term based its decision On conclusions not supported in the record. There is no support for the court’s finding that plaintiffs’ medical expert condemned the hospital’s procedures as “wholly inadequate and insufficient by any reasonable standards.” The affidavit of defendant’s expert, which should have been considered by Special Term, raised triable issues as to whether errors in transfusions may occur despite compliance with standard procedures’ and as to whether the erroneous blood transfusion was the proximate cause of Mrs. De Simone’s injury. Also, the record raises triable issues as to whether the acts] of the technician under the hurried circumstances were negligently performed, whether Mrs. De Simone’s own attending physician was negligent in earing for her, and, if so, whether such negligence was the cause of her injury. Accordingly, there should be a trial of the issues. Brennan, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopldns, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Beck v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.
52 A.D.3d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Salvatore v. Winthrop University Medical Center
36 A.D.3d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Loeffler v. Rogers
136 A.D.2d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.2d 660, 310 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-simone-v-lutheran-medical-center-nyappdiv-1970.