Lipsky v. Bierman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipsky v. Bierman

16 A.D.3d 319, 791 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 319 (Lipsky v. Bierman) 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

Lipsky v. Bierman, 16 A.D.3d 319, 791 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered September 9, 2005, inter alia, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant Bierman and against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiffs sue to recover for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff by reason of a blood clot that allegedly formed as a consequence of pulmonary valve surgery performed on the infant by defendant pediatric cardiologist Bierman. It is plaintiffs’ theory that the clot’s formation would have been prevented had Dr. Bierman administered heparin, an anticoagulant, before the surgery. However, the evidence before the jury, fairly considered, enabled the panel reasonably to conclude that Dr. Bierman used his best professional judgment in balancing the risks and benefits of administering heparin in advance of the surgery and, accordingly, that his decision not to use the drug did not constitute malpractice (see Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 398 [2002]).

[320]*320We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered September 9, 2005, inter alia, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant Bierman and against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Flaintiffs sue to recover for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff by reason of a blood clot that allegedly formed as a consequence of pulmonary valve surgery performed on the infant by defendant pediatric cardiologist Bierman. It is plaintiffs’ theory that the clot’s formation would have been prevented had Dr. Bierman administered heparin, an anticoagulant, before the surgery. However, the evidence before the jury, fairly considered, enabled the panel reasonably to conclude that Dr. Bierman used his best professional judgment in balancing the risks and benefits of administering heparin in advance of the surgery and, accordingly, that his decision not to use the drug did not constitute malpractice (see Nestorowich v Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 398 [2002]).

[320]*320We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 319, 791 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipsky-v-bierman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack