Sisko v. New York Hosp.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1996 |
| Citation | 647 N.Y.S.2d 191,231 A.D.2d 420 |
| Parties | John SISKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The NEW YORK HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Zoltan Neumark, for plaintiff-appellant.
Katharine Demgen, for defendants-respondents.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, RUBIN, NARDELLI and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about April 19, 1995, which granted plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to a prior judgment and order (one paper) (same court and Justice), entered on or about January 4, 1995, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint is reinstated.
In this action to recover damages for medical malpractice, plaintiff, a 58-year-old male, alleges that on April 23, 1990, he arrived at New York Hospital complaining of dizziness, difficulty walking and standing, and that he told Dr. Daniels, the emergency room treating physician, that he was having difficulty speaking. However, his admission record does not mention slurred speech.
Over a two-hour period, three blood pressure readings were taken (160/90, 140/90, and 140/100), Dr. Daniels administered a physical examination and diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from benign positional vertigo for which he prescribed the drug Antivert, and discharged him. Plaintiff was told to return if he experienced headaches or if his symptoms worsened.
Plaintiff rested at home for the next three days, with continued weakness in his right leg, preventing him from standing and walking. He did not call another doctor or health care provider until he was admitted to Metropolitan Hospital on April 27, 1990. His chart reflects right-side weakness and slurred speech. Plaintiff's blood pressure was normal, but a CT scan revealed an infarction of the left brain stem, indicating that he had suffered a stroke.
The instant action was brought against New York Hospital and Dr. Daniels. After discovery, including depositions of plaintiff and Dr. Daniels, defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff lacked documentary evidence to support his claim that he had slurred speech when he appeared at the hospital on April 23, and that, given the manifestation of the recorded and observed symptoms, Dr. Daniels was not negligent in diagnosing benign vertigo.
Plaintiff opposed the motion by offering, inter alia, the affidavit of his medical expert, Dr. Soffin, which stated that the point at which plaintiff experienced slurred speech is critical in determining when the stroke occurred. Dr. Soffin added that, given plaintiff's allegation that his speech was slurred, if
The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then submitted a supplemental affidavit from Dr. Soffin in support of a motion to renew and reargue. That affidavit differed from the original in that it stated that, "if [plaintiff] were admitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severino v. Weller
...initial burden of coming forward with evidence showing the absence of any material issue of fact (see Sisko v. New York Hosp., 231 A.D.2d 420, 422, 647 N.Y.S.2d 191 [1st Dept.1997], lv. dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 982, 656 N.Y.S.2d 740, 678 N.E.2d 1356 [1996] ). Defendants relied on expert affirmat......
-
Roques v. Noble
...to produce evidence in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see Sisko v. New York Hosp., 231 A.D.2d 420, 422, 647 N.Y.S.2d 191 [1996], lv. dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 982, 656 N.Y.S.2d 740, 678 N.E.2d 1356 [1997] ). In a medical malpractice action, once......
-
Melendez v. Parkchester Med. Serv., P.C.
...care in the medical community, and a proximate cause-i.e., a substantial factor-in bringing about the injury ( Sisko v. New York Hosp., 231 A.D.2d 420, 422, 647 N.Y.S.2d 191 [1996], lv. dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 982, 656 N.Y.S.2d 740, 678 N.E.2d 1356 [1997]; see also Coronel v. New York City Heal......
-
Miller v. Wun
...affirmation, ¶¶ 18-19. [60]See also Leberman v. Click. 207 A.D.3d 1203. 171 N.Y.S.3d 677 (4th Dept., 2022): Sisko v. New York Hasp., 231 A.D.2d 420, 647 N.Y.S.2d 191 (1st Dept., 1996), h dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 982. 656 N.Y.S.2d 740 (1997). [61] The patient"s expert vascular surgeon's attestati......