Hill v. Highland Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hill v. Highland Hospital

142 A.D.2d 955, 530 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14981

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 142 A.D.2d 955 (Hill v. Highland 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

Hill v. Highland Hospital, 142 A.D.2d 955, 530 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied defendant Root’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action to recover for second and third degree burns plaintiff’s decedent suffered during surgery to remove blockage in an artery in his leg. Plaintiff established that defendant Root, an anesthesiologist, was present throughout the surgery. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the burns appeared to be similar to classical thermal burns caused by contact with hot materials or objects. This evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defendant Root’s negligence on the basis of a permissible inference under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [956]*956(see, Mack v Hall Hosp., 121 AD2d 431, 432-433; Fogal v Genesee Hosp., 41 AD2d 468, 474-477; Gorka v Highland Hosp., 132 Misc 2d 783, 787-788; cf., Pipers v Rosenow, 39 AD2d 240, 242-245). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied defendant Root’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action to recover for second and third degree burns plaintiff’s decedent suffered during surgery to remove blockage in an artery in his leg. Plaintiff established that defendant Root, an anesthesiologist, was present throughout the surgery. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the burns appeared to be similar to classical thermal burns caused by contact with hot materials or objects. This evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of defendant Root’s negligence on the basis of a permissible inference under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [956]*956(see, Mack v Hall Hosp., 121 AD2d 431, 432-433; Fogal v Genesee Hosp., 41 AD2d 468, 474-477; Gorka v Highland Hosp., 132 Misc 2d 783, 787-788; cf., Pipers v Rosenow, 39 AD2d 240, 242-245). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.2d 955, 530 N.Y.S.2d 381, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-highland-hospital-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack