In re Seymour

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Seymour

288 A.D.2d 894, 732 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 894 (In re Seymour) 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

In re Seymour, 288 A.D.2d 894, 732 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On November 27, 2000, petitioner was working as an aide in the X-ray Department at respondent, Kenmore Mercy Hospital (Hospital), when a male patient weighing approximately 400 pounds fell on top of her while she was attempting to assist him onto an X-ray table. Supreme Court properly granted the application of petitioner for pre-action disclosure requiring the Hospital to disclose to petitioner’s attorney the name and address of the “male patient, seen in X-Ray Room 2 on [the date of the incident], with the highest notated weight of all such male patients.” Contrary to the contention of the Hospital, such disclosure does not violate the physician-patient privilege set forth in CPLR 4504 (a). The privilege does not apply where, as here, petitioner is not seeking to identify the patient by reference to the medical treatment that he received at the Hospital, but rather seeks to identify him by the fact of his extreme weight, a fact “plain to the observation of anyone without expert or professional knowledge” (Klein v Prudential Ins. Co., 221 NY 449, 453; see, Matter of Grand Jury Investigation of Onondaga County, 59 NY2d 130, 134; People v Hedges, 98 AD2d 950). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Disclosure.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: On November 27, 2000, petitioner was working as an aide in the X-ray Department at respondent, Kenmore Mercy Hospital (Hospital), when a male patient weighing approximately 400 pounds fell on top of her while she was attempting to assist him onto an X-ray table. Supreme Court properly granted the application of petitioner for pre-action disclosure requiring the Hospital to disclose to petitioner’s attorney the name and address of the “male patient, seen in X-Ray Room 2 on [the date of the incident], with the highest notated weight of all such male patients.” Contrary to the contention of the Hospital, such disclosure does not violate the physician-patient privilege set forth in CPLR 4504 (a). The privilege does not apply where, as here, petitioner is not seeking to identify the patient by reference to the medical treatment that he received at the Hospital, but rather seeks to identify him by the fact of his extreme weight, a fact “plain to the observation of anyone without expert or professional knowledge” (Klein v Prudential Ins. Co., 221 NY 449, 453; see, Matter of Grand Jury Investigation of Onondaga County, 59 NY2d 130, 134; People v Hedges, 98 AD2d 950). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Disclosure.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 894, 732 N.Y.S.2d 764, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seymour-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack