Rivera v. Kleinman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Kleinman

67 A.D.3d 482, 889 N.Y.S.2d 551

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 482 (Rivera v. Kleinman) 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

Rivera v. Kleinman, 67 A.D.3d 482, 889 N.Y.S.2d 551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), [483]*483entered January 6, 2009, summarily dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ expert stated that the infant patient’s injury and pain resulted from orthopedic hardware installed by defendants during hip surgery, which caused a protuberance that eventually punctured the skin. Defendants had advised plaintiff mother that the hardware should be removed between 18 and 24 months after surgery. There was no relevant pain prior to that time, but thereafter, the pin began to protrude, causing pain. Since plaintiffs failed to have the prescribed removal procedure until 3V2 years after the installation surgery, their inaction became the superseding cause of the injury (see Merritt v Saratoga Hosp., 298 AD2d 802, 805 [2002]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), [483]*483entered January 6, 2009, summarily dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ expert stated that the infant patient’s injury and pain resulted from orthopedic hardware installed by defendants during hip surgery, which caused a protuberance that eventually punctured the skin. Defendants had advised plaintiff mother that the hardware should be removed between 18 and 24 months after surgery. There was no relevant pain prior to that time, but thereafter, the pin began to protrude, causing pain. Since plaintiffs failed to have the prescribed removal procedure until 3V2 years after the installation surgery, their inaction became the superseding cause of the injury (see Merritt v Saratoga Hosp., 298 AD2d 802, 805 [2002]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 482, 889 N.Y.S.2d 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-kleinman-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack