MacDonald v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacDonald v. Beth Israel Medical Center

136 A.D.3d 516, 25 N.Y.S.3d 169

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

Docket223 800048/11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 516 (MacDonald v. Beth Israel Medical Center) 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

MacDonald v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 136 A.D.3d 516, 25 N.Y.S.3d 169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas E. Mc-Keon, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Beth Israel Medical Center and Shamit Patel, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Beth Israel and Dr. Patel established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that defendant Dr. Jason Bratcher, plaintiff’s attending physician, followed plaintiff’s care throughout her stay at Beth Israel. This included the period prior to plaintiff’s discharge when she allegedly showed symptoms of infection, and the hospital’s staff, including Dr. Patel, followed Dr. Bratcher’s orders (see Udoye v Westchester-Bronx OB/GYN, P.C., 126 AD3d 653, 654 [1st Dept 2015]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Although plaintiff’s expert asserted that Beth Israel was liable because its records indicated that its employee, Dr. Patel, was the “attending of record,” Dr. Patel’s actual function was to serve as an in-hospital attending physician to those patients, unlike plaintiff herein, admitted without private attending physicians of their own. Furthermore, the record shows that the functions that Dr. Patel performed were routine tasks, such as entering orders for blood work, pain control, hydration, and antibiotic administration for plaintiff’s post-surgical complications (see Filippone v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 253 AD2d 616, 618 [1st Dept 1998]). Dr. Patel deferred decisions as to plaintiff’s surgical and gastrointestinal care to her private attending, Dr. Bratcher, and exercised no “independent medical judgment” in plaintiff’s medical treatment (Walter *517 v Betancourt, 283 AD2d 223, 224 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Douglas E. Mc-Keon, J.), entered on or about September 15, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendants Beth Israel Medical Center and Shamit Patel, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Beth Israel and Dr. Patel established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that defendant Dr. Jason Bratcher, plaintiff’s attending physician, followed plaintiff’s care throughout her stay at Beth Israel. This included the period prior to plaintiff’s discharge when she allegedly showed symptoms of infection, and the hospital’s staff, including Dr. Patel, followed Dr. Bratcher’s orders (see Udoye v Westchester-Bronx OB/GYN, P.C., 126 AD3d 653, 654 [1st Dept 2015]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Although plaintiff’s expert asserted that Beth Israel was liable because its records indicated that its employee, Dr. Patel, was the “attending of record,” Dr. Patel’s actual function was to serve as an in-hospital attending physician to those patients, unlike plaintiff herein, admitted without private attending physicians of their own. Furthermore, the record shows that the functions that Dr. Patel performed were routine tasks, such as entering orders for blood work, pain control, hydration, and antibiotic administration for plaintiff’s post-surgical complications (see Filippone v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y., 253 AD2d 616, 618 [1st Dept 1998]). Dr. Patel deferred decisions as to plaintiff’s surgical and gastrointestinal care to her private attending, Dr. Bratcher, and exercised no “independent medical judgment” in plaintiff’s medical treatment (Walter *517 v Betancourt, 283 AD2d 223, 224 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur— Tom, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 516, 25 N.Y.S.3d 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-beth-israel-medical-center-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack