Nyhlen v. Millard Fillmore Hospitals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nyhlen v. Millard Fillmore Hospitals

275 A.D.2d 943, 715 N.Y.S.2d 183, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9551

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 943 (Nyhlen v. Millard Fillmore Hospitals) 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

Nyhlen v. Millard Fillmore Hospitals, 275 A.D.2d 943, 715 N.Y.S.2d 183, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Stephen J. Gawronski, M.D. (defendant), a vascular surgeon, was contacted by telephone to consult on the course of treatment for plaintiffs decedent, a patient whom he had never seen, and agreed to perform a surgical procedure to address a pulmonary embolism. Defendant contacted Millard Fillmore Hospital to schedule a time for the surgery but was advised that no operating rooms were available. Before an operating room became available, plaintiffs decedent died. Defendant never saw the patient, or went to the hospital that day. He was advised of decedent’s death by telephone. He was told that decedent’s [944]*944family was very angry and upset. Defendant was further advised that decedent’s family had been told that decedent died because the surgery had not been performed in a timely manner. Defendant testified at his deposition that, because of that information, he was concerned that a lawsuit would be commenced and therefore made notes of the events of the day.

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of the notes after an in camera review of the notes and a review of defendant’s deposition testimony. “Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure * * * and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court’s exercise of such authority should not be disturbed” (Andruszewski v Cantello, 247 AD2d 876). Implicit in the court’s decision is the determination that the notes were made in anticipation of litigation, and the court expressly determined that the “substantial equivalent” of the notes would be available through the depositions of defendants (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurl-butt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Stephen J. Gawronski, M.D. (defendant), a vascular surgeon, was contacted by telephone to consult on the course of treatment for plaintiffs decedent, a patient whom he had never seen, and agreed to perform a surgical procedure to address a pulmonary embolism. Defendant contacted Millard Fillmore Hospital to schedule a time for the surgery but was advised that no operating rooms were available. Before an operating room became available, plaintiffs decedent died. Defendant never saw the patient, or went to the hospital that day. He was advised of decedent’s death by telephone. He was told that decedent’s [944]*944family was very angry and upset. Defendant was further advised that decedent’s family had been told that decedent died because the surgery had not been performed in a timely manner. Defendant testified at his deposition that, because of that information, he was concerned that a lawsuit would be commenced and therefore made notes of the events of the day.

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to compel discovery of the notes after an in camera review of the notes and a review of defendant’s deposition testimony. “Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure * * * and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court’s exercise of such authority should not be disturbed” (Andruszewski v Cantello, 247 AD2d 876). Implicit in the court’s decision is the determination that the notes were made in anticipation of litigation, and the court expressly determined that the “substantial equivalent” of the notes would be available through the depositions of defendants (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Discovery.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurl-butt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 943, 715 N.Y.S.2d 183, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyhlen-v-millard-fillmore-hospitals-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack