Vargas v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vargas v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York

302 A.D.2d 247, 753 N.Y.S.2d 730, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1459

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 247 (Vargas v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York) 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

Vargas v. Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, 302 A.D.2d 247, 753 N.Y.S.2d 730, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 21, 2002, which, in an action for medical malpractice, denied defendant hospitals’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and granted the motion of defendants health insurer and its employees for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ medical expert’s affidavit raises issues of fact as to whether defendant hospitals departed from accepted standards of care, and, if so, whether such departures exacerbated the injury (see Lambos v Weintraub, 246 AD2d 356, 357-358). However, no genuine issues of fact are raised as to whether the insurer defendants contributed to the alleged delay in transferring the infant plaintiff to a hospital equipped to treat his condition, as the record shows his removal was promptly approved. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered March 21, 2002, which, in an action for medical malpractice, denied defendant hospitals’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and granted the motion of defendants health insurer and its employees for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ medical expert’s affidavit raises issues of fact as to whether defendant hospitals departed from accepted standards of care, and, if so, whether such departures exacerbated the injury (see Lambos v Weintraub, 246 AD2d 356, 357-358). However, no genuine issues of fact are raised as to whether the insurer defendants contributed to the alleged delay in transferring the infant plaintiff to a hospital equipped to treat his condition, as the record shows his removal was promptly approved. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 247, 753 N.Y.S.2d 730, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vargas-v-health-insurance-plan-of-greater-new-york-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack