Forrest v. Tierney
| Decision Date | 17 January 2012 |
| Citation | 91 A.D.3d 707,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00327,936 N.Y.S.2d 295 |
| Parties | William FORREST, appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. Sean TIERNEY, etc., et al., defendants,Mercy Medical Center, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Herman M. Goldberg & Associates, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Jeffrey J. Shapiro and Steven E. Millon of counsel), for appellant.
Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Arjay G. Yao, Sean F.X. Dugan, Rosaleen T. McCrory, and
Scott O. Frycek of counsel), for respondent Mercy Medical Center.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald S. Neumann, Jr., of counsel), for respondents Daniel G. Murphy, Christopher Edelstein, P.A., and Long Island Emergency Care, P.C.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff William Forrest appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered November 9, 2010, as granted the motion of the defendant Mercy Medical Center and the separate motion of the defendants Daniel G. Murphy, Christopher Edelstein, P.A., and Long Island Emergency Care, P.C., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On December 31, 2004, at approximately 4:01 P.M., the plaintiff William Forrest (hereinafter Forrest) presented to the emergency room at the defendant Mercy Medical Center (hereinafter Mercy), arriving by ambulance. Forrest complained of right flank pain radiating to the right shoulder for the past two weeks. He was examined by a triage nurse.
He was next examined by a physician's assistant, the defendant Christopher Edelstein, at 7:00 P.M. Edelstein ordered a laboratory work-up, an electrocardiogram (hereinafter EKG), a chest X ray, and a CT scan of Forrest's abdomen and pelvis. The EKG results were normal. The X ray showed “infiltrate, perhaps with fluid at the right base” of the right lung. The CT scan of the pelvis and abdomen showed a kidney stone measuring 3 to 4 millimeters in diameter and “evidence of a right base atelectasis versus infiltrate and a small pericardial effusion.” Edelstein documented these findings on Forrest's chart and made a preliminary diagnosis of lobar pneumonia.
Edelstein then presented the case to the defendant Daniel Murphy, a physician. Murphy also performed a physical examination of Forrest. Murphy noted that the chest X ray was positive for pneumonia, consistent with the symptoms observed. Murphy noted that he had received the CT scan results indicating an incidental, or small, pericardial effusion. Murphy diagnosed Forrest with pneumonia based on Forrest's history, physical examination, and chest X ray. In addition, Forrest was diagnosed with a kidney stone and a pericardial effusion.
Murphy instructed Edelstein to prescribe Forrest an antibiotic that is effective for pneumonia, and a pain medication. Murphy did not admit Forrest to the hospital because he did not present with any of the symptoms of toxicity which would have indicated the need for hospital admittance, such as low oxygen, dehydration, or unstable pulse or blood pressure. Forrest did not have a fever, appeared healthy, had a normal white blood cell count, and had a normal EKG, and the chest X ray showed infiltrate, but nothing “gigantic.”
Forrest was discharged at 8:11 P.M. with a diagnosis of lobar pneumonia and renal calculus, or kidney stone. Forrest was given his prescriptions and told to see a recommended pulmonary and critical care specialist at Mercy in three days and to return to the emergency room if his condition worsened. Forrest signed a statement stating that he received discharge instructions and would arrange follow-up care as instructed.
Forrest did not see the recommended doctor or seek treatment from any other doctor for five days. On January 5, 2005, Forrest returned to the emergency room at Mercy, was admitted with a diagnosis of right lobe pneumonia with empyema, and subsequently underwent two surgical procedures.
Forrest, and his wife,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosario v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing & Rehab. Care Ctr.
...good and accepted medical practices and was not proximately related to any injuries sustained by the decedent (see Forrest v. Tierney, 91 A.D.3d 707, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 804, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302 ).In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from an ......
-
Rivers v. Birnbaum
...follow-up plan is conclusory and speculative, and thus, fails to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation ( see Forrest v. Tierney, 91 A.D.3d 707, 709, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295;Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 805, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that bran......
-
Schussheim v. Barazani
...the plaintiff's alleged injuries (see Brinkley v. Nassau Health Care Corp., 120 A.D.3d 1287, 1290, 993 N.Y.S.2d 73 ; Forrest v. Tierney, 91 A.D.3d 707, 709, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Graziano v. Cooling, 79 A.D.3d 803, 804–805, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302 ; DiMitri v. Monsouri, 302 A.D.2d 420, 421, 754 N.Y.S......
-
Gilmore v. Mihail
...standards of medical practice and was not the proximate cause of the injured plaintiff's claimed injuries (see Forrest v. Tierney , 91 A.D.3d 707, 709, 936 N.Y.S.2d 295 ; Graziano v. Cooling , 79 A.D.3d 803, 804, 913 N.Y.S.2d 302 ). The defendants' expert noted that in comparing the preoper......