Wisholek v. Douglas
| Decision Date | 21 March 2002 |
| Citation | 743 N.Y.S.2d 51,769 N.E.2d 808,97 N.Y.2d 740 |
| Parties | BARBARA W. WISHOLEK et al., Respondents, v. GARY DOUGLAS, M.D., Defendant, and HEALTH CARE PLAN, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Feldman, Kieffer & Herman, LLP, Buffalo (Ann W. Herman of counsel), for appellant.
Stamm, Reynolds & Stamm, Williamsville (Bradley J. Stamm of counsel), for respondents.
Couch White, LLP, Albany (Harold N. Iselin of counsel), for Health Plan Association of New York, Inc., amicus curiae.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT and GRAFFEO concur in memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court, with directions to dismiss the action as against The Health Care Plan, Inc., solely upon the ground that the issue as presented in this case is moot.
This appeal arises from a medical malpractice action commenced by plaintiff and her husband against Dr. Gary Douglas and his employer, The Health Care Plan, Inc. (HCP)—a qualified health maintenance organization. HCP moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, arguing that Public Health Law § 4410 (1) precludes suits sounding in medical malpractice against health maintenance organizations. Supreme Court denied the motion.
At trial, the jury returned a verdict that Douglas was negligent, his negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injuries, and he was acting within the scope of his employment and in the furtherance of the business of HCP. The jury also determined that HCP was negligent but that its negligence was not a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiffs were awarded damages totaling over $3 million against both defendants.
The Appellate Division modified the judgment, on the law, by granting a new trial on damages for future pain and suffering unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction of the verdict for future pain and suffering damages to $1.5 million, which she did. HCP was then granted leave to appeal to this Court. However, this Court was subsequently advised by the parties that the amended judgment was satisfied; indeed both Douglas and HCP are named on the satisfaction of judgment that was filed June 15, 2001. Plaintiffs now argue that, given the full satisfaction of judgment by Douglas, the issue pending before this Court is moot.
An "appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene
...319, 34 N.E.3d 829 ; City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 507, 903 N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366 ; Wisholek v. Douglas, 97 N.Y.2d 740, 741, 743 N.Y.S.2d 51, 769 N.E.2d 808 ; Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ; Matter of In Defense of ......
-
Berger v. Prospect Park Residence, LLC, 2017-09743
...N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ). If one or more of these elements is missing, the exception does not apply (see e.g. Wisholek v. Douglas, 97 N.Y.2d 740, 742, 743 N.Y.S.2d 51, 769 N.E.2d 808 ; Matter of Gold–Greenberger v. Human Resources Admin. of City of N.Y., 77 N.Y.2d 973, 974–975, 571 N.......
-
Cagnina v. Onondaga County
...and circumstances or otherwise, such issues cannot be determined by declaratory judgment. Hearst Corporation v. dyne, supra; Wisholek v. Douglas. 97 N.Y.2d 740. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments, 34-36, 2nd Edition, 1941. To meet the test of justiciability, it is necessary to present the cour......
-
Sportsmen's Tavern LLC v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth.
...986 N.Y.S.2d 18, 9 N.E.3d 368 [2014] ). Moreover, "the issue is not of the type that typically evades review" ( Wisholek v. Douglas , 97 N.Y.2d 740, 742, 743 N.Y.S.2d 51, 769 N.E.2d 808 [2002] ). Indeed, as the parties have acknowledged, the guidance at issue here 195 A.D.3d 1559 prohibitin......
-
Unwise and unnecessary: statutory caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases and the appellate review alternative.
...$1,500,000 Douglas, 722 $25,000 (spousal $25,000 N.Y.S.2d 316 derivative cause of (App. Div. action) 2001), rev'd on other grounds, 769 N.E.2d 808 N.Y. 2002) Weinstein v. YES $2,000,000 $2,000,000 New York $8,000,000 $4,500,000 Hosp., 720 N.Y.S.2d 475 (App. Div. 2001) Case Name Reduction? A......