Ruane v. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center

• Decision Date: 23 November 1983
• Citation: 60 N.Y.2d 908,458 N.E.2d 1253,470 N.Y.S.2d 576
• Parties: , 458 N.E.2d 1253 Colleen RUANE et al., Appellants, v. NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 576

470 N.Y.S.2d 576

60 N.Y.2d 908, 458 N.E.2d 1253

Colleen RUANE et al., Appellants, v.NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 23, 1983.

[60 N.Y.2d 909] Thomas V. Hagerty, Buffalo, for appellants.

Andrew D. Merrick and Gerald J. Hubbard, Buffalo, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 91 A.D.2d 1176, 459 N.Y.S.2d 147, should be affirmed with costs.

On appeal to this courtthe plaintiff's only contention is that the alleged continuous treatment by her personal physician should be attributed to the hospital.The fact that the doctor also happened to be affiliated with the hospital, but not employed by the hospital, is not alone sufficient to impute the doctor's conduct following the implantation of the devices to the hospital.Because no other circumstances were demonstrated the complaint against the hospital was properly dismissed (cf.McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399, 452 N.Y.S.2d 351, 437 N.E.2d 1108).We find no legal basis for concluding, as plaintiff urges, that although the relationship between the doctor and the hospital may not be sufficient to impute the doctor's...