Humphrey v. Cartagena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Humphrey v. Cartagena

55 A.D.3d 333, 865 N.Y.S.2d 200

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 333 (Humphrey v. Cartagena) 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

Humphrey v. Cartagena, 55 A.D.3d 333, 865 N.Y.S.2d 200 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to appear for a supplemental independent medical examination to consist of urodynamic testing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who voluntarily underwent urodynamic studies by her own physician without adverse effects, failed to make a prima facie showing that a repeat urodynamic study would pose a serious threat to her health (see Chavoustie v New York Hosp.—Cornell Med. Ctr., 253 AD2d 702 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999]). Her doctor’s conclusory assertion that a repeat procedure was “contraindicated” because it would cause discomfort and could cause infection or exacerbate her condition was insufficient to constitute such a showing (see Thomas v Mather Mem. Hosp., 162 AD2d 521, 523 [1990]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2008, which granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to appear for a supplemental independent medical examination to consist of urodynamic testing, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, who voluntarily underwent urodynamic studies by her own physician without adverse effects, failed to make a prima facie showing that a repeat urodynamic study would pose a serious threat to her health (see Chavoustie v New York Hosp.—Cornell Med. Ctr., 253 AD2d 702 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 [1999]). Her doctor’s conclusory assertion that a repeat procedure was “contraindicated” because it would cause discomfort and could cause infection or exacerbate her condition was insufficient to constitute such a showing (see Thomas v Mather Mem. Hosp., 162 AD2d 521, 523 [1990]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 333, 865 N.Y.S.2d 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-cartagena-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack