Singleton v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singleton v. State

55 A.D.2d 717, 389 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15491

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 9, 1976·No. Claim No. 57472·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment, entered November 13, 1975, upon a decision of the Court of Claims in favor of the defendant State of New York. The judgment is affirmed. We adopt the findings of Judge Mangum in the Court of Claims. While we are troubled by the incompleteness of written notes or records as to patient evaluation and treatment recommendations, we conclude upon our review of the testimonial evidence that the evidence establishing the rather extensive freedom of movement given to claimant in the nature of passes to leave the grounds and attendance at rehabilitation classes adequately supports the conclusion that the team of treating physicians was aware of and did exercise medical judgment in acquiescing in the method of treatment. In Cohen v State of New York (51 AD2d 494), there was testimony that "bad judgment” had been exercised. We there found, in fact, that no judgment had been exercised, wherefore that case is distinguishable. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment, entered November 13, 1975, upon a decision of the Court of Claims in favor of the defendant State of New York. The judgment is affirmed. We adopt the findings of Judge Mangum in the Court of Claims. While we are troubled by the incompleteness of written notes or records as to patient evaluation and treatment recommendations, we conclude upon our review of the testimonial evidence that the evidence establishing the rather extensive freedom of movement given to claimant in the nature of passes to leave the grounds and attendance at rehabilitation classes adequately supports the conclusion that the team of treating physicians was aware of and did exercise medical judgment in acquiescing in the method of treatment. In Cohen v State of New York (51 AD2d 494), there was testimony that "bad judgment” had been exercised. We there found, in fact, that no judgment had been exercised, wherefore that case is distinguishable. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Singleton v. State, 55 A.D.2d 717, 389 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

55 A.D.2d 717 (Singleton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related