Williams v. Howe
| Decision Date | 16 September 2002 |
| Citation | 747 N.Y.S.2d 251,297 A.D.2d 671 |
| Parties | MAERITA WILLIAMS, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ALFRED S. HOWE, Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss those claims based on alleged acts of medical malpractice committed on or after March 8, 1995, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Beginning in May 1990, the defendant Dr. Alfred Howe provided the plaintiff with routine medical treatment as her primary care physician. On November 7, 1994, the plaintiff was treated at Dr. Howe's medical office for the first time by Dr. Anthony DeSalvo. Dr. DeSalvo was allegedly employed by an entity called "A Program Plan for Life Enrichment" (hereinafter APPLE), which purportedly had entered into an agreement to purchase Dr. Howe's medical practice. Dr. Howe primarily treated the plaintiff until December 29, 1994, after which she was seen during office visits by Dr. DeSalvo. On April 29, 1995, the plaintiff was hospitalized and underwent emergency surgery for a perforated ulcer.
On September 8, 1997, the plaintiff commenced this action against Dr. Howe, among others, alleging that he and his employees and agents committed malpractice. Dr. DeSalvo was not named as a defendant, and the action was discontinued against the remaining defendants in 1999. Dr. Howe subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-a). Dr. Howe alleged that since the action was commenced on September 8, 1997, any claims based on acts of malpractice committed before March 8, 1995, were time-barred, and he last treated the plaintiff on December 29, 1994. Dr. Howe further contended that he could not be held vicariously liable for any negligent treatment rendered thereafter by Dr. DeSalvo. In addition, Dr. Howe moved for summary judgment on the ground that his treatment of the plaintiff did not depart from good and accepted standards of care. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, we conclude that Dr. Howe failed to establish as a matter of law that he cannot be held vicariously liable for treatment rendered by Dr. DeSalvo. Although vicarious liability for medical malpractice generally turns upon agency or control, apparent or ostensible agency may also serve as a predicate for such liability (see Hill v St. Clare's Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79; Santiago v Archer, 136 AD2d 690). In his motion papers, Dr. Howe failed to establish that the plaintiff was informed of the intended takeover of his practice by APPLE or that Dr. DeSalvo was an employee of APPLE, rather than a physician in practice with him. Although Dr. Howe testified at his deposition that the plaintiff was APPLE's patient on November 10, 1994, he treated her on that day and on several occasions thereafter in the absence of Dr. DeSalvo. No proof was offered that the plaintiff was informed that she should no longer consider herself Dr. Howe's patient....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Frankel
...without more do not create joint venture between attending and cover physician as a matter of public policy); Williams v. Howe, 297 A.D.2d 671, 747 N.Y.S.2d 251, 252 (2002) (vicarious liability of one physician for the professional negligence of another turns on agency or control); Rouse v.......
-
Tomeo v. Beccia
...Hosp., 69 A.D.3d 403, 894 N.Y.S.2d 11 ; Johnson v. Queens–Long Is. Med. Group, P.C., 23 A.D.3d 525, 806 N.Y.S.2d 614 ; Williams v. Howe, 297 A.D.2d 671, 747 N.Y.S.2d 251 ). Ward's affidavit was insufficient to refute the allegations set forth in the plaintiff's bill of particulars (see Bend......
-
Cham v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Brooklyn
...Med. Group, P.C., 23 A.D.3d 525, 527, 806 N.Y.S.2d 614; Hutchinson v. Bernstein, 22 A.D.3d 527, 801 N.Y.S.2d 766; Williams v. Howe, 297 A.D.2d 671, 673, 747 N.Y.S.2d 251; Brosnan v. Shafron, 278 A.D.2d 442, 718 N.Y.S.2d 641; Cicolello v. Limb, 216 A.D.2d 434, 628 N.Y.S.2d 369). In light of ......
-
Bellafiore v. Ricotta
...turns upon agency or control, apparent or ostensible agency may also serve as a predicate for such liability” ( Williams v. Howe, 297 A.D.2d 671, 672, 747 N.Y.S.2d 251; see Hill v. St. Clare's Hosp., 67 N.Y.2d 72, 499 N.Y.S.2d 904, 490 N.E.2d 823). When supervised medical personnel are not ......