Topel v. New York Infirmary-Beekman Downtown Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Topel v. New York Infirmary-Beekman Downtown Hospital

184 A.D.2d 462

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

DecidedJune 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 462 (Topel v. New York Infirmary-Beekman Downtown Hospital) 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

Topel v. New York Infirmary-Beekman Downtown Hospital, 184 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 28, 1991, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as to defendant hospital only, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issues involved in the first interrogatory submitted to the jury did not include, as defendant hospital would have it, whether plaintiff’s subluxation was traumatic or chronic, but only whether the initial emergency room x-rays revealed a subluxation that should have been detected, and, if so, whether [463]*463plaintiff should have been admitted to the hospital. Upon a review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the jury’s findings in favor of defendant hospital on these issues were against the weight of the evidence. However, the basis for finding negligence on the part of the hospital, that the initial x-rays were misread, does not apply to defendant Ho, and, as to him, the verdict was properly upheld. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered October 28, 1991, which granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as to defendant hospital only, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issues involved in the first interrogatory submitted to the jury did not include, as defendant hospital would have it, whether plaintiff’s subluxation was traumatic or chronic, but only whether the initial emergency room x-rays revealed a subluxation that should have been detected, and, if so, whether [463]*463plaintiff should have been admitted to the hospital. Upon a review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the jury’s findings in favor of defendant hospital on these issues were against the weight of the evidence. However, the basis for finding negligence on the part of the hospital, that the initial x-rays were misread, does not apply to defendant Ho, and, as to him, the verdict was properly upheld. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/topel-v-new-york-infirmary-beekman-downtown-hospital-nyappdiv-1992.