Tom v. Holtzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tom v. Holtzman

131 A.D.3d 420, 15 N.Y.S.3d 325

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

DecidedAugust 11, 2015

Docket14629 117208/06

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 420 (Tom v. Holtzman) 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

Tom v. Holtzman, 131 A.D.3d 420, 15 N.Y.S.3d 325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 30, 2013, which, after a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict to the extent of ordering a new trial on one of plaintiff’s three theories of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for medical malpractice, the jury’s verdict with regard to the timing of plaintiff’s MRI was at odds with any fair interpretation of the evidence, requiring a new trial on his theory that defendant departed from good and accepted standards of neurosurgical care by failing to immediately obtain an *421 MRI (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [1st Dept 2004]). Defendant failed to explain how waiting nearly 24 hours to examine plaintiff fell within the relevant standard of care. Upon his examination, defendant determined that plaintiff needed a transfer to a better equipped facility. Notably, defendant conceded that plaintiff needed an MRI “right away, that day,” although he offered reasons for the delay. However, there were no MRI technicians available to perform scans on weekends at Cabrini, and he took no steps to either call a technician in or have an MRI performed elsewhere until the following day.

The jury’s finding that defendant did not deviate from the standard of care by delaying surgery does not estop plaintiff from pursuing the theory at a second trial that defendant failed to timely obtain an MRI. Plaintiffs theory premised on the timing of the MRI is independent from his theory regarding the timing of the surgery. To the extent that the questions could result in an inconsistent verdict, defendant failed to object to the wording of the special verdict sheet.

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 30, 2013, which, after a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict to the extent of ordering a new trial on one of plaintiff’s three theories of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for medical malpractice, the jury’s verdict with regard to the timing of plaintiff’s MRI was at odds with any fair interpretation of the evidence, requiring a new trial on his theory that defendant departed from good and accepted standards of neurosurgical care by failing to immediately obtain an *421 MRI (see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd., 9 AD3d 195, 206 [1st Dept 2004]). Defendant failed to explain how waiting nearly 24 hours to examine plaintiff fell within the relevant standard of care. Upon his examination, defendant determined that plaintiff needed a transfer to a better equipped facility. Notably, defendant conceded that plaintiff needed an MRI “right away, that day,” although he offered reasons for the delay. However, there were no MRI technicians available to perform scans on weekends at Cabrini, and he took no steps to either call a technician in or have an MRI performed elsewhere until the following day.

The jury’s finding that defendant did not deviate from the standard of care by delaying surgery does not estop plaintiff from pursuing the theory at a second trial that defendant failed to timely obtain an MRI. Plaintiffs theory premised on the timing of the MRI is independent from his theory regarding the timing of the surgery. To the extent that the questions could result in an inconsistent verdict, defendant failed to object to the wording of the special verdict sheet.

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 420, 15 N.Y.S.3d 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tom-v-holtzman-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack