Feinberg v. Feit

Decision Date21 November 2005
Docket Number2004-06513.
Citation806 N.Y.S.2d 661,23 A.D.3d 517,2005 NY Slip Op 08946
PartiesFRANKLIN FEINBERG, Appellant, v. SHELDON FEIT et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated against the defendants Sheldon Feit and Metropolitan Diagnostic Imaging, P.C.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants were negligent in their treatment of the plaintiff's deceased wife, Holly Feinberg, which resulted in her death from lung cancer. Ms. Feinberg, a one-pack per day cigarette smoker for 30 years, saw the defendant Dr. Philip Spadafora for a routine checkup in March 1999. During the visit, Dr. Spadafora took a chest X-ray which he sent to the defendant Metropolitan Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. (hereinafter Metropolitan), for review. The defendant Dr. Sheldon Feit, a radiologist on the staff at Metropolitan, reviewed Ms. Feinberg's chest X-ray and found no abnormalities. He prepared a report of his findings and submitted it to Dr. Spadafora, who advised Ms. Feinberg of the results. Ms. Feinberg never visited Dr. Spadafora again. In March 2000, while undergoing a routine physical examination with another physician, Ms. Feinberg had another chest X-ray, which revealed a suspicious mass, requiring further testing. Eventually, a biopsy was conducted which determined that Ms. Feinberg had lung cancer. Ms. Feinberg was treated with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. However, she died of lung cancer on October 7, 2001.

The plaintiff, individually and as administrator of Ms. Feinberg's estate, commenced this action against the defendants alleging, inter alia, that they failed to properly and timely diagnose Ms. Feinberg's cancer. This appeal ensued from so much of the order as granted the motion of Dr. Feit and Metropolitan for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury or damage (see Anderson v Lamaute, 306 AD2d 232, 233 [2003]; DiMitri v Monsouri, 302 AD2d 420, 421 [2003]; Holbrook v United Hosp. Med. Ctr., 248 AD2d 358, 359 [1998]). Dr. Feit and Metropolitan made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
287 cases
  • Kaffl v. Glen Cove Hosp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • March 21, 2019
    ...51 A.D.3d 757, 859 N.Y.S.2d 203 (2d Dept. 2008); Graham v. Mitchell, 37 A.D.3d 408, 829 N.Y.S.2d 628 (2d Dept. 2007); Feinberg v. Feit, 23 A.D.3d 517, 806 N.Y.S.2d 661 (2d Dept. 2005). See also. "Such conflicting expert opinions will raise credibility issues which can only be resolved by a ......
  • Rosario v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing & Rehab. Care Ctr.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 16, 2020
    ...is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions" ( Feinberg v. Feit, 23 A.D.3d 517, 519, 806 N.Y.S.2d 661 ). On a motion for summary judgment, the party opposing the motion is entitled to every favorable inference that may be d......
  • Eckert v. Cold Spring Hills Ctr. for Nursing & Rehab.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • November 18, 2020
    ... ... N.Y.S.2d 203 (2d Dept. 2008); Graham v. Mitchell, 37 ... A.D.3d 408, 829 N.Y.S.2d 628 (2d Dept. 2007); Feinberg v ... Feit, 23 A.D.3d 517, 806 N.Y.S.2d 661 (2d Dept. 2005) ... "Such conflicting expert opinions will raise credibility ... ...
  • DiLorenzo v. Zaso
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 29, 2017
    ...is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions" (Feinberg v. Feit, 23 A.D.3d 517, 519, 806 N.Y.S.2d 661 ). "General and conclusory allegations of medical malpractice, however, unsupported by competent evidence tending to estab......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT