Brito v. Gomez
| Decision Date | 10 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 97 SSM 14,97 SSM 14 |
| Citation | 107 N.Y.S.3d 797 (Mem),131 N.E.3d 904,33 N.Y.3d 1126 |
| Parties | Benedicta BRITO, Respondent, v. Rafael GOMEZ et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York City (Nicholas P. Hurzeler of counsel), for appellants.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, LLP, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and the certified question answered in the negative.
Plaintiff affirmatively placed the condition of her knees into controversy through allegations that the underlying accident caused difficulties in walking and standing that affect her ambulatory capacity and resultant damages (see generally Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393, 409, 850 N.Y.S.2d 345, 880 N.E.2d 831 [2007] ; Dillenbeck v. Hess, 73 N.Y.2d 278, 287, 539 N.Y.S.2d 707, 536 N.E.2d 1126 [1989] ). Under the particular circumstances of this case, plaintiff therefore waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to the prior treatment of her knees and the discovery sought by authorizations pertaining to the treatment of plaintiff's knees is "material and necessary" to defendants' defense of the action ( CPLR 3101[a] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court erred in denying defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery related to the prior treatment of her knees.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11 ), order reversed, with costs, case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and certified question answered in the negative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. 659 Rest. Inc.
...Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38 [2014], quoting Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406 [1968]; see also Brito v. Gomez, 33 N.Y.3d 1126 [2019]; Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d 1139 [2d Dept 2010]). At the same time, a party is "not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolle......
-
Norman v. 659 Rest. Inc.
...Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32, 38 [2014], quoting Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406 [1968]; see also Brito v. Gomez, 33 N.Y.3d 1126 [2019]; Foster v. Herbert Slepoy Corp., 74 A.D.3d 1139 [2d Dept 2010]). At the same time, a party is "not entitled to unlimited, uncontrolle......
-
Hogdahl v. LCOR 55 Bank St., LLC
...for conditions not placed in controversy and which are protected by the physician-patient privilege. Plaintiff relies on Brito v Gomez, 33 N.Y.3d 1126 [2019] for the proposition that a litigant in a personal injury action claiming lost earnings and loss of enjoyment of life does not waive t......
-
Hogdahl v. LCOR 55 Bank St., LLC
...future earning capacity and benefits plaintiff has placed his general health into controversy. RRP contends that plaintiff's reliance on Brito v Gomez is misplaced because that allowed defendants in that case to obtain records for conditions that were not affirmatively placed in controversy......
-
Witness
...in issue by contesting the allegations against him or her and affirmatively asserting her mental condition at trial. Brito v. Gomez , 33 N.Y.3d 1126, 1127 (N.Y. 2019). Where plaintiff placed the condition of her knees into controversy by alleging difficulties in walking and standing, she wa......
-
Privileges
...treatment for drug addiction, since such information goes directly to the cause of the alleged injury. Privilege waived Brito v. Gomez , 33 N.Y.3d 1126, 131 N.E.3d 904 (2019). Plaintiff waived the physician-patient privilege with respect to the prior treatment of her knees by affirmatively ......