Gorham v. Markenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gorham v. Markenson

121 A.D.3d 540, 993 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2014

Docket13259 800064/10

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.3d 540 (Gorham v. Markenson) 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

Gorham v. Markenson, 121 A.D.3d 540, 993 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 19, 2013, which denied defendant Matthew Weissman’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in his treatment of plaintiffs decedent, a child who suffered physical abuse that resulted in her death at one year of age. Flaintiff contends that defendant failed to diagnose, treat and report the physical abuse; defendant argues that he had no reasonable cause to suspect physical abuse. Defendant’s expert opinion that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice is insufficient to establish defendant’s defense, because, although the record contains sharply conflicting accounts of the child’s mother’s reports to defendant and of the conditions that the child presented with when defendant saw her, the expert based her opinion on only one version of facts reflecting what defendant knew about the abuse (see generally Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204, 206 [1st Dept 2010]).

For the foregoing reason, defendant also failed to establish prima facie that he did not breach his duty to report his suspicion that the child was abused (see Social Services Law § 413 [1] [a]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 19, 2013, which denied defendant Matthew Weissman’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in his treatment of plaintiffs decedent, a child who suffered physical abuse that resulted in her death at one year of age. Flaintiff contends that defendant failed to diagnose, treat and report the physical abuse; defendant argues that he had no reasonable cause to suspect physical abuse. Defendant’s expert opinion that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice is insufficient to establish defendant’s defense, because, although the record contains sharply conflicting accounts of the child’s mother’s reports to defendant and of the conditions that the child presented with when defendant saw her, the expert based her opinion on only one version of facts reflecting what defendant knew about the abuse (see generally Roques v Noble, 73 AD3d 204, 206 [1st Dept 2010]).

For the foregoing reason, defendant also failed to establish prima facie that he did not breach his duty to report his suspicion that the child was abused (see Social Services Law § 413 [1] [a]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.E, Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 540, 993 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorham-v-markenson-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack