Rothstein v. Chihee Huh

60 A.D.3d 839, 875 N.Y.S.2d 250
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 839 (Rothstein v. Chihee Huh) 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
Rothstein v. Chihee Huh, 60 A.D.3d 839, 875 N.Y.S.2d 250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, the defendants Chihee Huh, Hans Christian Fromme, David Neckritz, and Maimonides Medical Center appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated April 8, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order regarding mental health and alcohol abuse treatment records.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for a protective order is denied.

It is well settled that a plaintiff who commences a medical malpractice action waives the physician-patient privilege with respect to those physical or mental conditions which he or she affirmatively places in issue in the lawsuit (see Dillenbeck v Hess, 73 NY2d 278, 287 [1989]; Koump v Smith, 25 NY2d 287, 294 [1969]). Since the plaintiff affirmatively placed the mental condition of her ward in controversy, the appellants were entitled to full disclosure of records regarding her ward’s mental health and alcohol abuse treatment, if any, prior to the date of the alleged negligence (see Avila v 106 Corona Realty Corp., 300 AD2d 266, 267 [2002]; Ellerin v Bentley’s, 266 AD2d 259, 260 [1999]; Daniele v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 74 AD2d 814 [1980]; cf. Wojtusiak v Elardo, 43 AD3d 436 [2007]; Calendar v Mnasin, 23 AD3d 509 [2005]). In addition, the nature and severity of the previous mental condition of her ward is material [840]*840and necessary to the issue of damages recoverable for a claimed loss of enjoyment of life due to his current brain injury (see Diamond v Ross Orthopedic Group, P.C., 41 AD3d 768, 769 [2007]; Vanalst v City of New York, 276 AD2d 789 [2000]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hongyan Sun v. Lee
181 N.Y.S.3d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Del Grosso v. Jimmy Jazz Staten Is., LLC
2021 NY Slip Op 00007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Castro v. Admar Supply Co., Inc.
2018 NY Slip Op 2113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Greco v. Wellington Leasing Ltd. Partnership
2016 NY Slip Op 7925 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Montalto v. Heckler
113 A.D.3d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
ADAMS, DIANCA v. DAUGHTERY, EVA I.
110 A.D.3d 1454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
DEXTER, DOMINIQUE v. KOERNTGEN, ROBERT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Dominique D. v. Koerntgen
107 A.D.3d 1433 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Moreira v. M.K. Travel & Transport, Inc.
106 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
M.C. v. Sylvia Marsh Equities, Inc.
103 A.D.3d 676 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Azznara v. Strauss
81 A.D.3d 578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Congleton v. United Health Services Hospitals
67 A.D.3d 1148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.3d 839, 875 N.Y.S.2d 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rothstein-v-chihee-huh-nyappdiv-2009.