Dobson v. Perales

175 A.D.2d 628
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 12, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 628 (Dobson v. Perales) 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
Dobson v. Perales, 175 A.D.2d 628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner’s proof established that, in order for her to participate in therapy or training, go to her gynecologist, attend community or social affairs, or visit her family, she needed a lightweight customized wheelchair. The record shows that the powered wheelchair she owned could not be used for those purposes and that using a standard manual wheelchair aggravated her medical condition. Her therapist, caseworker and doctor indicated that the use of a standard manual wheelchair caused petitioner to have pressure sores and back pains, aggravated her hiatal hernia, and predisposed her to the dislocation of joints. Petitioner was also required to use a manual wheelchair during the almost monthly repair or maintenance to her powered wheelchair. Because respondent Perales did not offer any contrary proof, the determination that a customized wheelchair was not "medically necessary” to prevent, correct, or cure petitioner’s condition (see, Social Services Law § 365-a) was not supported by substantial evidence (cf, Matter of Coffey v D’Elia, 61 NY2d 645). We therefore annul the respondent’s determination and grant the petition. (Article 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

GODFREY, MICHELLE v. SHAH, NIRAV R.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Godfrey v. Shah
91 A.D.3d 1294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Layer v. Novello
17 A.D.3d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Sorrentino v. Novello
295 A.D.2d 945 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lagowski v. Whalen
270 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Dembowski v. Hanna
245 A.D.2d 1039 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Starkweather v. Wing
242 A.D.2d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Ray v. Wing
238 A.D.2d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Johnson v. Wing
237 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Gartz v. Wing
236 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D.2d 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobson-v-perales-nyappdiv-1991.