Aaron v. Raber
| Decision Date | 18 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019–00965,Index No. 61703/14 |
| Citation | Aaron v. Raber, 188 A.D.3d 967, 136 N.Y.S.3d 114 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) |
| Parties | Estelle AARON, et al., plaintiffs, v. Eugene RABER, etc., appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Vardaro & Associates, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Kelly L. Nagosky of counsel), for appellant.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Eugene Raber appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), dated December 7, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motion of the defendant Eugene Raber for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him is granted.
The plaintiff Estelle Aaron (hereinafter the plaintiff) fractured her right femur, after which she underwent corrective surgery in March 2013. On April 12, 2013, the plaintiff voluntarily transferred from the Gurwin Jewish Nursing & Rehabilitation Center to the Glen Cove Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation (hereinafter Glen Cove). The plaintiff was wearing a removable, rigid right leg brace when she was transferred. At a follow-up appointment on May 13, 2013, the plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon found the plaintiff's right knee had become stiff and impossible to bend. The plaintiff was discharged from Glen Cove on May 15, 2013.
The plaintiff commenced this action in March 2014, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice in failing to properly rehabilitate her right knee. The Supreme Court denied the motion of the defendant Eugene Raber, a physician specializing in internal medicine who treated the plaintiff at Glen Cove, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. Raber appeals.
Raber established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him through evidence that he did not depart from good and accepted medical practice in his treatment of the plaintiff. "Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient" ( Burns v. Goyal, 145 A.D.3d 952, 954, 44 N.Y.S.3d 180, mod 30 N.Y.3d 956, 64 N.Y.S.3d 659, 86 N.E.3d 551 ).
Here, Raber testified at his deposition that he is trained only in internal medicine, and was the plaintiff's internist while she was at Glen Cove. Raber established that he was not the plaintiff's physical or occupational therapist and was not involved in the plaintiff's physical therapy plan of care. Physical therapists (see Education Law §§ 6731, 6732 ) must be educated and licensed in that specific field (see Education Law § 6734 ), and Raber had no such training. Occupational therapists must similarly be educated and licensed in their field (see Education Law § 7904 ). Raber's medical expert opined that Raber's training as an internal medicine specialist did not encompass the skills and knowledge required to assess a patient's physical therapy needs, create a physical therapy plan of care, or supervise a physical therapy plan of care.
Physical therapy...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Elstein v. Hammer
...that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient" ( Aaron v. Raber, 188 A.D.3d 967, 968, 136 N.Y.S.3d 114 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Davison v. State of New York, 180 A.D.3d 995, 119 N.Y.S.3d 554 Romanelli v. Jones, 17......
- Finizio v. Midwest Custom Case, Inc.
-
Orszulak v. David
...that an internal medicine physician who provides a referral to specialists has "no duty to evaluate the efficacy of that treatment" (Aaron v Raber, at 969). Court finds that Dr. Kurstein, the referring primary care physician, did not undertake any duty to oversee or question the specialist ......
-
Walker v. Rosenfeld Plastic Surgery
...care and to establish proximate cause" (Novick v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 136 A.D.3d 999, 1000 [2d Dept 2016]; see Aaron v Raber, 188 A.D.3d 967 [2d Dept 2020]). "Establishing proximate cause in medical malpractice cases requires a plaintiff to present sufficient medical evidence fro......