Mauskopf v. Ross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mauskopf v. Ross

192 A.D.2d 304, 595 N.Y.S.2d 461

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 304 (Mauskopf v. Ross) 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

Mauskopf v. Ross, 192 A.D.2d 304, 595 N.Y.S.2d 461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to who was responsible for the seven-day delay in performing the CAT scan and whether such delay was a departure from accepted medical practice. The record suggests that the testing equipment may have been inoperable from midday on May 14, a Thursday, to the morning of May 15, 1981, a Friday, but no explanation is provided why the test was not conducted during the preceding five days, of which three were weekdays. Nor can it be determined how promptly the order to conduct the CAT scan was transmitted to the radiologist. The affidavit submitted by appellant’s expert did not address the apparent practice of having CAT scans performed expeditiously regardless of urgency, and thus failed to make a prima facie showing that appellant did not depart from accepted medical practice. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1992, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to who was responsible for the seven-day delay in performing the CAT scan and whether such delay was a departure from accepted medical practice. The record suggests that the testing equipment may have been inoperable from midday on May 14, a Thursday, to the morning of May 15, 1981, a Friday, but no explanation is provided why the test was not conducted during the preceding five days, of which three were weekdays. Nor can it be determined how promptly the order to conduct the CAT scan was transmitted to the radiologist. The affidavit submitted by appellant’s expert did not address the apparent practice of having CAT scans performed expeditiously regardless of urgency, and thus failed to make a prima facie showing that appellant did not depart from accepted medical practice. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 304, 595 N.Y.S.2d 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauskopf-v-ross-nyappdiv-1993.