Jankowski v. Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jankowski v. Sherman

137 A.D.2d 492, 524 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 784

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.2d 492 (Jankowski v. Sherman) 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

Jankowski v. Sherman, 137 A.D.2d 492, 524 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death based on medical malpractice, the defendant A. George Fleischer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated May 7, 1987, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ intestate, a patient at Staten Island Hospital, suffered multiple fractures in his right leg caused by an automobile accident resulting in his undergoing surgery twice within the space of 10 days. Hospital records indicate that, despite the two operations, his fractures showed some displacement. Subsequently, he was given ambulation therapy by the hospital’s physical therapy department on three occasions. On the third occasion the defendant-appellant, Dr. Fleischer, head of the hospital’s physical therapy department, was summoned by the attending physical therapist because the patient began feeling sick. Dr. Fleischer arrived to find the patient sweaty and pale, his blood pressure low and his breathing irregular. The patient was put in a "plant” position, after which he vomited and said he felt better. After permitting him to rest for 5 to 10 minutes, the appellant sent the patient to his room accompanied by a hospital aide and a physical therapist. En route, the patient died of what was diagnosed as a massive pulmonary embolism caused by thrombosis in the veins of the lower right extremity.

A review of the record, including the affirmations of the plaintiff’s expert, reveals that there are triable issues present regarding the conduct of the appellant in the treatment of the patient including his supervision of the patient during this critical time.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death based on medical malpractice, the defendant A. George Fleischer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated May 7, 1987, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ intestate, a patient at Staten Island Hospital, suffered multiple fractures in his right leg caused by an automobile accident resulting in his undergoing surgery twice within the space of 10 days. Hospital records indicate that, despite the two operations, his fractures showed some displacement. Subsequently, he was given ambulation therapy by the hospital’s physical therapy department on three occasions. On the third occasion the defendant-appellant, Dr. Fleischer, head of the hospital’s physical therapy department, was summoned by the attending physical therapist because the patient began feeling sick. Dr. Fleischer arrived to find the patient sweaty and pale, his blood pressure low and his breathing irregular. The patient was put in a "plant” position, after which he vomited and said he felt better. After permitting him to rest for 5 to 10 minutes, the appellant sent the patient to his room accompanied by a hospital aide and a physical therapist. En route, the patient died of what was diagnosed as a massive pulmonary embolism caused by thrombosis in the veins of the lower right extremity.

A review of the record, including the affirmations of the plaintiff’s expert, reveals that there are triable issues present regarding the conduct of the appellant in the treatment of the patient including his supervision of the patient during this critical time.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 492, 524 N.Y.S.2d 237, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jankowski-v-sherman-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack