Dunlop v. Sivaraman
| Decision Date | 30 May 2000 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | JOANN DUNLOP et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>VIMALA S. SIVARAMAN, Respondent. |
O'Brien, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the provisions of the order dated March 15, 1999, dismissing the first and third causes of action asserted in the complaint are vacated, those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action are denied, those causes of action are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings.
The defendant made a prima facie showing that she did not depart from accepted medical practice in rendering treatment to the plaintiff Joann Dunlop (see, Kramer v Rosenthal, 224 AD2d 392). However, the affidavit of the plaintiffs' expert raised a triable question of fact with regard to that issue by proffering a medical opinion based upon specified facts (see, Baez v Lockridge, 259 AD2d 573), that the surgical procedure was unnecessary (see, Lipsius v White, 91 AD 2d 271). Accordingly, the first and third causes of action of the complaint should be reinstated.
The second cause of action, alleging lack of informed consent, was properly dismissed. To recover damages for lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must establish, pursuant to Public Health Law § 2805-d, that (1) the defendant physician failed to disclose the material risks, benefits, and alternatives to the contemplated medical procedure which a reasonable medical practitioner "under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation", and (2) a reasonably prudent person in the patient's position would not have undergone the procedure if he or she had been fully informed (Public Health Law § 2805-d [1], [3]; Davis v Nassau Ophthalmic Servs., 232 AD2d 358). The plaintiffs' expert did not specifically address the adequacy of the information provided to the injured plaintiff by the defendant (see, Evans v Holleran, 198 AD2d 472), and made only conclusory allegations that a reasonably prudent person would have refused to consent to the procedure.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cardaci v. Ciarello, 2007 NY Slip Op 31413(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 5/24/2007)
...Law § 2805-d; see also, Benfer v. Sachs, 3 A.D.3d 781, 782-83 (3d Dept. 2004), affd, 19 A.D.3d 853 (3d Dept. 2005); Dunlop v. Sivaraman, 272 A.D.2d 570 (2d Dept. 2000); Hylick v. Halweil, 112 A.D.2d 400, 401 (2d Dept. On this record, Dr. Ciarallo has submitted sufficient medical evidence, n......
-
Orenstein v. Park
... ... Public Health Law 2805-d; see also, Benfer v. Sachs, 3 A.D.3d 781, 782-83 (3d Dept. 2004), affd 19 A.D.3d 853 (3d Dept. 2005); Dunlop v. Sivaraman, 272 A.D.2d 570 (2d Dept. 2000); Hylick v. Halweil, 112 A.D.2d 400, 401 (2d Dept. 1985).On this record, defendants have failed to submit ... ...
-
Kadanoff v. Whitlow
...537, 538, 795 N.Y.S.2d 317 ; Vega v. Mount Sinai–NYU Med. Ctr. & Health Sys., 13 A.D.3d 62, 63, 786 N.Y.S.2d 23 ; Dunlop v. Sivaraman, 272 A.D.2d 570, 570, 709 N.Y.S.2d 419 ; Lipsius v. White, 91 A.D.2d 271, 277–278, 458 N.Y.S.2d 928 ). In addition, the opinion of Whitlow's expert that the ......
-
The Plastic Surgery Group, P.C. v. Kolb, 2007 NY Slip Op 33174(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 9/26/2007)
...person in the patient's position would not have undergone the procedure if he or she had been fully informed. Dunlop v. Silverman, 272 A.D.2d 570, 570-571 (2d Dept. 2000) citing Public Health Law § 2805-d[1], [3]; Davis v. Nassau Ophthalmic Servs., 232 A.D.2d 358 (2d Dept. 1996), lv den. 89......