Oelschlagel v. United Parcel Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oelschlagel v. United Parcel Service

23 A.D.3d 359, 804 N.Y.S.2d 765

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 359 (Oelschlagel v. United Parcel Service) 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

Oelschlagel v. United Parcel Service, 23 A.D.3d 359, 804 N.Y.S.2d 765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 1, 2004, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Burton L. Sekuler for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient” (Boone v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 12 AD3d 338, 339 [2004];see Wasserman v Staten Is. Radiological Assoc., 2 AD3d 713, 714 [2003]). The third-party defendant Burton L. Sekuler submitted evidence sufficient to establish his entitle[360]*360ment to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Kleinert v Begum, 144 AD2d 645 [1988]). The single examination by Sekuler of the plaintiffs decedent did not render him responsible for her care subsequent to his consultation. In opposition, the third-party plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 1, 2004, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Burton L. Sekuler for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient” (Boone v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Forest Hills, 12 AD3d 338, 339 [2004];see Wasserman v Staten Is. Radiological Assoc., 2 AD3d 713, 714 [2003]). The third-party defendant Burton L. Sekuler submitted evidence sufficient to establish his entitle[360]*360ment to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Kleinert v Begum, 144 AD2d 645 [1988]). The single examination by Sekuler of the plaintiffs decedent did not render him responsible for her care subsequent to his consultation. In opposition, the third-party plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 359, 804 N.Y.S.2d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oelschlagel-v-united-parcel-service-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack