Smolen v. Pen Fa Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smolen v. Pen Fa Lee

111 A.D.2d 801, 490 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50047

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

DecidedJune 10, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 801 (Smolen v. Pen Fa Lee) 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

Smolen v. Pen Fa Lee, 111 A.D.2d 801, 490 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and for lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated July 28, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We have examined the record and agree with the trial court that there was no expert testimony or other evidence presented at trial which could support a finding that defendant aggravated a preexisting condition as a result of his alleged negligent course of treatment of plaintiff. Accordingly, it was not error for the court to refuse to charge that defendant could be found liable for aggravating a condition for which plaintiff was predisposed. To the contrary, it would have been improper to instruct the jury on a theory of liability which could not be supported by the evidence (cf. Skelka v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 76 AD2d 492).

Plaintiffs’ theory throughout the trial was that defendant caused her schizophrenia. The testimony of Dr. Chodosh, a defense expert, that it was possible that Mrs. Smolen’s schizophrenia was “unmasked” by amphetamines and made easier to treat does not of itself make out a prima facie case of aggravation of an existing condition.

[802]*802We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and for lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated July 28, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

We have examined the record and agree with the trial court that there was no expert testimony or other evidence presented at trial which could support a finding that defendant aggravated a preexisting condition as a result of his alleged negligent course of treatment of plaintiff. Accordingly, it was not error for the court to refuse to charge that defendant could be found liable for aggravating a condition for which plaintiff was predisposed. To the contrary, it would have been improper to instruct the jury on a theory of liability which could not be supported by the evidence (cf. Skelka v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 76 AD2d 492).

Plaintiffs’ theory throughout the trial was that defendant caused her schizophrenia. The testimony of Dr. Chodosh, a defense expert, that it was possible that Mrs. Smolen’s schizophrenia was “unmasked” by amphetamines and made easier to treat does not of itself make out a prima facie case of aggravation of an existing condition.

[802]*802We have reviewed plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 801, 490 N.Y.S.2d 346, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smolen-v-pen-fa-lee-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack