Furey v. Kraft
| Decision Date | 07 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2004-10113. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 01577,812 N.Y.S.2d 590,27 A.D.3d 416 |
| Parties | GERARD FUREY, Appellant, v. HOWARD J. KRAFT et al., Defendants, and NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On June 10, 1995, Fabia Furey, who was approximately six months pregnant, experienced staining and cramping. The defendant Howard J. Kraft, her personal obstetrician, instructed her to meet him at the defendant North Shore University Hospital (hereinafter the hospital) for treatment of her suspected pre-term labor. Mrs. Furey arrived at the hospital at 5:30 P.M. Treatment was undertaken in an attempt to arrest her labor and avoid the premature birth of her baby. However, by approximately 6:25 P.M., Mrs. Furey's labor had progressed to the point where Dr. Kraft decided to discontinue attempts to stop her labor and instead deliver the baby. At 7:12 P.M., the plaintiff, Gerard Furey, was born. This action was subsequently commenced to recover damages for medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and negligent hiring or retention. The plaintiff's bill of particulars alleges, inter alia, that the hospital departed from accepted standards of medical care for treating premature labor by failing to timely establish intravenous (hereinafter IV) access and begin IV hydration upon Mrs. Furey's arrival at the hospital, and by failing to timely secure and prepare the administration of appropriate tocolytic agents, i.e., medications used to arrest uterine contractions and prevent or delay a pre-term birth, in this case magnesium sulfate, all of which contributed to the plaintiff's premature birth and concomitant injuries. After joinder of issue, the hospital successfully moved for summary judgment and this appeal ensued.
The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted medical 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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montagnino v. Inamed Corp.
...77 ; Faicco v. Golub, 91 A.D.3d 817, 818, 938 N.Y.S.2d 105 ; Roca v. Perel, 51 A.D.3d 757, 758, 859 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; Furey v. Kraft, 27 A.D.3d 416, 417, 812 N.Y.S.2d 590 ). Accordingly, a physician moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice must esta......
-
Schofield v. Edward B. Borden, M.D., P.C.
...818, 938 N.Y.S.2d 105 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Roca v. Perel, 51 A.D.3d 757, 758, 859 N.Y.S.2d 203;Furey v. Kraft, 27 A.D.3d 416, 417–418, 812 N.Y.S.2d 590). “A physician moving for summary judgment dismissing a complaint alleging medical malpractice must establish, prima fac......
-
Farrell v. Herzog
...N.Y.S.2d 215; Mancuso v. Friscia, 108 A.D.3d 748, 970 N.Y.S.2d 77; Roca v. Perel, 51 A.D.3d 757, 758, 859 N.Y.S.2d 203; Furey v. Kraft, 27 A.D.3d 416, 417, 812 N.Y.S.2d 590). “Accordingly, ‘[a] physician moving for summary judgment dismissing a complaint alleging medical malpractice must es......
-
Farrell v. Herzog
...215 ; Mancuso v. Friscia, 108 A.D.3d 748, 970 N.Y.S.2d 77 ; Roca v. Perel, 51 A.D.3d 757, 758, 859 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; Furey v. Kraft, 27 A.D.3d 416, 417, 812 N.Y.S.2d 590 ). “Accordingly, ‘[a] physician moving for summary judgment dismissing a complaint alleging medical malpractice must establi......