Ulma v. Yonkers General Hospital
| Decision Date | 07 June 1976 |
| Parties | Dorothy L. ULMA, as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v. YONKERS GENERAL HOSPITAL et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph J. Brophy, White Plains (Joseph J. Brophy, Jr., White Plains, on the brief), for appellant.
King, Edwards & O'Connor, White Plains (Siff & Newman, P.C. (Thomas R. Newman), New York City, of counsel), for Yonkers General Hospital.
Martin, Clearwater & Bell, New York City (Francis P. Bensel, New York City, of counsel), for Senal.
Before MARTUSCELLO, Acting P.J., and COHALAN, DAMIANI, SHAPIRO and TITONE, JJ..
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a consolidated medical malpractice action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 4, 1975, which is in favor of (1) the defendant Yonkers General Hospital, upon the trial court's dismissal of the complaint as against the said defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case, and (2) the defendant Dr. Eugene I. Senal, upon a jury verdict.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The proof at the trial established that on December 21, 1970, plaintiff's decedent, her late husband William Ulma, was taken to the emergency room of the defendant Yonkers General Hospital complaining of abdominal pain and exhibiting signs of hyperventilation. Upon arriving at the emergency room, he went directly to the lavatory where he remained for approximately 20 minutes. After emerging from the lavatory and registering with the emergency room personnel, Mr. Ulma was examined by the intern on duty and was given a blood test and a urinalysis. The plaintiff testified that she, in accordance with her husband's direction, directed the hospital to 'get his doctor, Dr. Rudnikoff' and that she 'understood Dr. Rudnikoff was coming.' After the intern's examination of Mr. Ulma, Dr. Rudnikoff was telephoned, but the call was answered by the latter's partner and associate, the defendant Dr. Senal, who was 'on call' that night. Mr. Ulma's complaints and test results were communicated to Dr. Senal, who diagnosed the condition as gastroenteritis and prescribed Compazine--a drug for relieving pain and nausea. Dr. Senal directed the hospital to send the patient home with instructions to contact him at any time. Within approximately a half hour to 60 minutes from the first call, the hospital called again, explaining that the patient still felt ill and that the family thought the patient too ill to take home. At this point Dr. Senal stated: 'All right, I'm coming in.' Upon his arrival at the hospital, the record on this appeal indicates that Dr. Senal carefully and thoroughly examined Mr. Ulma. His examination included elicitation of a history from the patient, review of the hospital tests, examination of the patient's heart by stethoscope, palpation of the abdomen, examination of a specimen of 'vomitus' for presence of bile or blood and a check of the patient's groin pulse for signs of an aortic aneurysm which could possibly produce abdominal pain.
After that examination Dr. Senal determined that Mr. Ulma was suffering from gastroenteritis and that admission to the hospital was not necessary. Upon that decision, the patient, with his wife and daughter, left the emergency room and walked through the hospital parking lot to the family car. Upon reaching the car, Mr. Ulma tragically collapsed and died.
The autopsy established the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aspiazu v. Orgera
...medical probability" standard that is relied upon so often in direct testimony by medical experts. See Ulma v. Yonkers General Hospital, 53 App.Div.2d 626, 384 N.Y.S.2d 201 (1976). An expert opinion cannot be based on conjecture or surmise but must be "reasonably probable." Witkowski v. Gol......
-
McKilligan v. McKilligan
...48 N.Y.2d 455, 423 N.Y.S.2d 645, 399 N.E.2d 532; see also, People v. Bethune, 105 A.D.2d 262, 484 N.Y.S.2d 577; Ulma v. Yonkers Gen. Hosp., 53 A.D.2d 626, 384 N.Y.S.2d 201). The record discloses that Monastra based his testimony upon his treatment of plaintiff over the course of 30 sessions......
-
Dahlberg v. Ogle
...(1923), 193 Ind. 376, 140 N.E. 546; Williams v. Chamberlain (Mo.1958), 316 S.W.2d 505; Ulma, as Administratrix, etc. v. Yonkers General Hospital et al. (1976), 53 A.D.2d 626, 384 N.Y.S.2d 201. The motion was properly granted as the liability of Dr. Ogle arising from his individual acts and ......
-
Tiernan v. Heinzen
...v. Adams, 38 N.Y.2d 792, 381 N.Y.S.2d 869, 345 N.E.2d 341, affg. on opn. at 46 A.D.2d 467, 363 N.Y.S.2d 119; Ulma v. Yonkers Gen. Hosp., 53 A.D.2d 626, 627, 384 N.Y.S.2d 201; cf. Koehler v. Schwartz, 48 N.Y.2d 807, 424 N.Y.S.2d 119, 399 N.E.2d 1140). Accordingly, the judgment should be reve......