Daniele v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, JEWISH-HILLSIDE
| Decision Date | 03 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | JEWISH-HILLSIDE |
| Citation | 74 A.D.2d 814,425 N.Y.S.2d 363 |
| Parties | Donna M. DANIELE et al., Appellants, v. LONG ISLANDMEDICAL CENTER et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Surowitz & Ruskin, New York City (Donald M. Nussbaum, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Bower & Gardner, New York City (Siff & Newman, P. C., New York City (Louis G. Adolfsen and Steven Di Joseph), New York City, of counsel), for respondents Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, Alfred Trufelli and Peter Zucker.
Morris, Duffy, Ivone & Jensen, New York City (Lois E. Freedman, New York City, of counsel), for respondent Wallace ( the brief submitted by respondent Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center et al.).
Before MANGANO, J. P., and COHALAN, MARTUSCELLO and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 3, 1979 as, upon reargument, adhered to that part of its prior order dated August 23, 1979, which directed plaintiff Donna M. Daniele to appear for an examination before trial and answer questions regarding any treatment she may have received from a psychiatrist or psychologist.
Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements payable to the respondents appearing and filing a brief.
Plaintiffs' claim that the injuries sustained included insomnia, irritability, fatigue and weight loss, together with a statement in plaintiff's physician's report that "there is a marked psychological or functional overlay to account an elaboration of some of the symptoms and signs", affirmatively placed plaintiff Donna M. Daniele's mental condition in controversy, and entitled the defendants to full disclosure regarding any psychiatric or psychological treatment she may have received prior to or subsequent to the date of the alleged malpractice (see Koump v. Smith, 25 N.Y.2d 287, 303 N.Y.S.2d 858, 250 N.E.2d 857).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farrow v. Allen
...obtain whatever information is necessary to present a full and fair picture of that condition (see, Daniele v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center, 74 A.D.2d 814, 425 N.Y.S.2d 363; Brooks v. Hausauer, 51 A.D.2d 660, 379 N.Y.S.2d 306). In such a situation, the type of broad waiver arg......
-
Cynthia B. v. New Rochelle Hosp. Medical Center
...were "material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action" (CPLR 3101; see, e.g., Daniele v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center, 74 A.D.2d 814, 425 N.Y.S.2d 363; Brooks v. Hausauer, 51 A.D.2d 660, 379 N.Y.S.2d 306; Mancinelli v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 34 A.D.2d 53......
-
Difrancesco v. Win-Sum Ski Corp.
...facts to affirmatively place her mental condition in controversy in thisphysical injury claim); Daniele v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 74 A.D.2d 814, 425 N.Y.S.2d 363 (2d Dep't 1980) (same, in medical malpractice claim, plaintiff affirmatively placed mental condition in controversy ......
-
DeLouise v. S.K.I. Wholesale Beer Corp.
...Corp., 300 A.D.2d at 267, 750 N.Y.S.2d 764; St. Clare v. Cattani, 128 A.D.2d 766, 513 N.Y.S.2d 250; Daniele v. Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Ctr., 74 A.D.2d 814, 425 N.Y.S.2d 363). Moreover, the nature and severity of the plaintiff's previous injuries and medical conditions are material and......