Dr. Michael Cross - Great Orthopedic Surgeons Dr. Michael A. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004], citing Brill [denying untimely filed summary judgment motion because although the plaintiff argued she had meritorious case, no reasonable excuse was provided as to the motion's late filing]; see also Casas v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 105 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2013] [upholding order striking answer where the defendant offered no reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with discovery order and provide a meritorious defense]). Dr. Michael Cross, MD | Lawrenceburg, IN | Radiation Oncology | Vitals In addition, the motion court correctly dismissed the second cause of action alleging lack of informed consent as plaintiff's papers did not address this claim. McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. Dr. Michael B. The plaintiff's expert's opinion is equally conclusory whether it is applied to the asserted negligence of either [*18]facility, and if it does not suffice to sustain the action as against HJD, it does not suffice to sustain the action as against HSS. Financial Disclosures. Lapin is one in a line of cases holding that an untimely cross motion may be considered on its merits when it and the timely motion address essentially the same issues. Hospital for Special Surgery/Cornell Medical Center Residency, Orthopaedic Surgery, 2007 - 2012. Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . New York, NY, 10021. for cervical spine cases. Sinai where plaintiff later underwent a two stage revision cervical laminectomy with fusion. Dr. Michael Cross, MD, Orthopedic Surgery Specialist - New York, NY Plaintiff underwent a two-stage cervical spine surgery in December 2005. Parker v LIJMC-Satellite Dialysis Facility, 92 AD3d 740, 741-742 [2d Dept 2012] [failure to receive significant outstanding discovery before the deadline for making motion for summary judgment provides good cause for allowing a late-filed motion for summary judgment]; see also Kase v H.E.E. Cross, MD . Dr. Michael Ast, MD - New York, NY | Orthopaedic Surgery - Doximity The majority thereby dispenses with the salutary aspects of summary disposition acknowledged in Brill for no apparent purpose. Auto. Rather, it will be for a trial court and a jury to hear plaintiff's case, and should plaintiff prevail, then, assuming a timely appeal is taken and perfected, and only then, will we have occasion to consider the merits of the claim against HSS. Hospital for Special Surgery and the HSS Alumni Association gratefully thank the Autumn Beneit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for several medical education initiatives, including publication of . Again, in hindsight, he formulates a conclusory opinion that the more aggressive approach to treatment was the proper one; the competing medical factors to be considered in deciding whether to perform the surgery are simply not addressed. With the advantage of hindsight, the doctor offers that "[w]hile further diagnostic studies were not inappropriate, they did not contribute any substantial information which would alter the indicated treatment." Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. Featured Providers Near You Dr. Brian Anthony Cole, MD Visit Website. Dr. Michael Cross, MD - Lafayette, IN | Orthopaedic Surgery As defendant Hospital for Special Surgery (together with codefendants Frelinghuysen and Girardi, HSS) concedes, its cross motion was untimely, and it did not allege any good cause for its delay. Dr. Michael Brian Cross, MD Orthopedic Surgery Leave a review Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd, Indianapolis, IN, 46278 12 other locations (317) 802-2000 Overview Locations OVERVIEW. Even if we were to find that the Court of Appeals intended for an exception to be carved out of Brill for incorrectly labeled "me too cross motions," that is, motions relying on the arguments and evidence of the originally filed motions, to the extent HSS's motion against a nonmoving party can be properly considered such a motion, the motion court correctly found that it is not merely a duplication of HJD's timely motion. As this Court recently noted in Williams v New York City Tr. Our decision is not one on the merits of plaintiff's claim, and it is therefore premature to bemoan that we have opened a Pandora's box for surgeons. Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. On October 1, 2004, plaintiff saw defendant Dr. Peter Frelinghuysen, an orthopaedic surgeon at HSS, who noted that he was "very concerned" that there was only a small chance that surgery would improve plaintiff's condition. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). Dr. Michael Cross, MD | Indianapolis, IN | Orthopedic Surgery | Vitals In June 2004, plaintiff returned to HSS with continuing complaints of progressive right shoulder weakness, increased neck pain and decreased balance. The motion by HJD was submitted on November 11, 2011, three days before the deadline of November 14, 2011 imposed by the motion court under CPLR 3212(a). Unlike the dissent, we do not find that a straightforward interpretation of the statute, or Brill, leads to "absurd and unintended consequences," especially as the Court of Appeals acknowledges in Brill that if the strictures of CPLR 3212(a) are applied "as written and intended," there may be situations where a meritorious summary judgment motion may be [*8]denied, "burdening the litigants and trial calendar with a case that in fact leaves nothing to try" as was the result in Brill (2 NY3d at 653). HSS Names Michael P. Ast, MD, Vice-Chair and Chief Medical Innovation Here, the modestly late motion submitted by HSS sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion. Since trial of this matter was already stayed by HJD's timely motion for summary judgment at the time HSS submitted its marginally late summary judgment motion which raises the same dispositive issue as the timely motion, refusing to entertain the subsequent motion does nothing to avoid the delay of trial and waste of judicial resources, the primary purposes of Brill, by requiring trial of a virtually identical lawsuit ripe for summary disposition. All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P. In response, plaintiff's expert merely averred that if the subject cervical revision surgery had been performed earlier, plaintiff's ultimate outcome would have been substantially improved and he would not have sustained such a severe degree of weakness and loss of function of his right upper extremity. The clinic notes indicated that plaintiff "need[ed] a decompression at C3-4, C4-5 and C6-7," that "probably" this would be done in an anterior approach, and that "surgery will be booked in the near future." Socy., 266 NY 71, 88 [1934]). According to Dr. Olsewski, the best case scenario "was to stop further progression of the cervical myelopathy"; the worst could have resulted in permanent paralysis or death, risks "well beyond the standard. Menu. Everyone was professional. HSS Orthopedics Joins Forces With Stamford Health. Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a question of fact requiring a trial (Kosson v Algaze, 84 NY2d 1019 [1995]). Granted, the HSS motion is not a cross motion, as denominated, and as such it is untimely (CPLR 2215). Insurance Information for Hospital for Special Surgery | HSS In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. But most importantly, the dissent's approach is in derogation of CPLR 3212(a). Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. The HSS "cross motion," which runs from page 842 to page 1002 of the record on appeal, is comprised of many items not contained in the HJD motion papers, not the least of which is additional medical records not submitted by HJD. In Brill, the City of New York moved for summary judgment on the basis that it never had notice of the defect and therefore could not be liable for the plaintiff's personal injuries by law. It reasons that because Brill emphasizes the advantages of summary judgment, with which we of course agree, those advantages outweigh a consistent application of the statute. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Cross, MD. Dr. Murphy conclusively states that plaintiff's condition progressively deteriorated during the period of treatment at defendant hospitals, yet he points to no objective evidence supporting this statement, despite the fact that the record contains numerous diagnostic tests over that period of time. To the contrary, the compelling interest is judicial economy, which militates in favor of summary disposition of even an untimely motion made in response to one timely filed (see Burns, 307 AD2d at 864), [*16]especially if that "summary judgment motion may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Here, at the time HSS submitted its untimely motion for summary judgment, the proceedings were already stayed by the concededly timely summary judgment motion brought by HJD. The motion court also correctly denied summary judgment to HSS because its motion was untimely made without any explanation for its untimeliness, let alone good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]). HSS argued to the motion court, as it does to this Court, that its motion should be considered on the merits because it merely presents the same arguments made by HJD. The undesirable practice sought to be prevented by revision of CPLR 3212(a) is the waste of resources expended in preparation for trial as the result of a belated summary judgment motion staying the proceedings. Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. Neither the motion court nor the majority identifies any prejudice that was incurred by any party due to HSS's motion that might warrant requiring HSS to forfeit summary determination. First of all, under the authority of Brill [2 NY3d 648 (2004)], the cross[]motion was clearly untimely without any explanation, and counsel is simply wrong when he argues that the cross[]motion raises the same issues as the motion timely made by [HJD]. Both seek dismissal of the complaint on the identical ground that it was not a departure from good and accepted medical practice to forego surgery in favor of a conservative treatment plan, i.e., based on the severity of plaintiff's existing spinal disease and the low prospect of improving his condition, the decision not to subject plaintiff to the risk of quadriplegia or death was a sound medical decision. The courts will no longer have to address the kinds of questions we address here. Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill. After review of the MRI, he determined that no further surgery for the cervical spine was indicated and that there should be no lumbar spine surgery "at this time." Footnote 1: To reiterate, it was the timely motion by HJD that delayed trial, not the motion submitted by HSS while HJD's motion was pending, a situation addressed neither by the statute nor Brill. Finally, the majority adopts the trial court's conclusion that the expert's opinion is imprecise with respect to the nature of the alleged deterioration in plaintiff's condition and the extent to which each hospital bears responsibility. The doctor also noted that plaintiff's "only option" might be a future shoulder arthrodesis "to allow him to have a more functional lifestyle." No surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's neurological deficits, "which were significant by the time he presented at HJD, and had already existed for many years."
Miami Dolphins Coaching Staff Salaries, Why Is Zazzle Shipping So Expensive, Nba 3 Point Attempts Per Game, Springfield Thunderbirds Roster 2021 2022, Articles D