Heidt v. Rome Memorial Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heidt v. Rome Memorial Hospital

278 A.D.2d 786, 724 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13478

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 786 (Heidt v. Rome Memorial Hospital) 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

Heidt v. Rome Memorial Hospital, 278 A.D.2d 786, 724 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied in part the motions and cross motion of all defendants except Rory Tropp, M.D. (defendants) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There are issues of fact concerning the alleged negligence of defendants in their failure to diagnose the infant and to provide appropriate treatment. “Battered child syndrome” is an accepted medical diagnosis (see, People v Henson, 33 NY2d 63, 73-74), and a medical malpractice action may be premised upon a failure to diagnose it (see, Landeros v Flood, 17 Cal 3d 399, 551 P2d 389). Further, although the infant’s catastrophic injuries were directly caused by the intentional criminal act of the infant’s father, there is an issue of fact whether that act was a “reasonably foreseeable” consequence of defendants’ alleged negligence (Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33; see, Bell v Board of Educ., 90 NY2d 944, 946; cf., Levitt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 184 AD2d 427, 429).

All concur except Lawton, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in the following Memorandum.

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

Order affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied in part the motions and cross motion of all defendants except Rory Tropp, M.D. (defendants) seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There are issues of fact concerning the alleged negligence of defendants in their failure to diagnose the infant and to provide appropriate treatment. “Battered child syndrome” is an accepted medical diagnosis (see, People v Henson, 33 NY2d 63, 73-74), and a medical malpractice action may be premised upon a failure to diagnose it (see, Landeros v Flood, 17 Cal 3d 399, 551 P2d 389). Further, although the infant’s catastrophic injuries were directly caused by the intentional criminal act of the infant’s father, there is an issue of fact whether that act was a “reasonably foreseeable” consequence of defendants’ alleged negligence (Kush v City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 33; see, Bell v Board of Educ., 90 NY2d 944, 946; cf., Levitt v Lenox Hill Hosp., 184 AD2d 427, 429).

All concur except Lawton, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in the following Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 786, 724 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heidt-v-rome-memorial-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack