In Levinson we held that there was no reason to address whether one of the "cross motions" was untimely because the moving defendants' timely motion had put plaintiff on notice that he needed to rebut the prima facie showing that he had not met the serious injury threshold; when the plaintiff in Levinson failed to do this, the complaint was correctly dismissed as to all codefendants. This statement concedes that HSS properly conducted further studies; that the results failed to afford any further diagnostic insight that was not predictable, and neither the tests themselves nor the time expended in conducting them are rendered improper as a result of that outcome. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve as a question of fact whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff" (citing Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]). On March 24, 2016, Dr. Machler reported the results of a weeklong skin patch test, in which plaintiff was exposed to 121 allergens against the skin of his back. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons The problem in the case at bar is that HSS's motion, in addition to being untimely, is not a true cross motion. Moreover, the exception discussed in Filannino allowing the courts to consider proper but untimely cross motions, at least as to issues shared with the original motion, addresses the dissent's concern that a cross-moving party might be caused to file its motion late because it had insufficient time before the deadline occurred. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. by Peter Gordon. 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. Significantly, Brill deals with the straightforward situation in which an initial summary judgment motion is filed well after a matter has been certified as ready for trial "in violation of legislative mandate" (id. Michael CROSS | Assistant Attending Orthopaedic Surgeon | Hospital for dr michael cross leaving hss Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and rev Michael B. In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Location in NY, NJ, CT and Florida. Under the circumstances presented by this matter, this view constitutes an unnecessarily rigid application of [*14]CPLR 3212(a), contravening the sound policy considerations underlying the decision and the intent expressed by the Legislature in amending the statute. The gravamen of his claim is that HSS and HJD failed to timely perform surgery upon him, leaving him with neurological and muscular damage that would not have occurred had the surgery been performed earlier. Tel: (212) 606-1000. The notes also indicate that this doctor explained to plaintiff that the reason to do surgery would be to prevent worsening of his symptoms. Footnote 4: The dissent overlooks the very different lengths of treatment offered to plaintiff by HSS and HJD. Footnote 2: Supreme Court's extension of the time to file dispositive motions had given the parties a total of 82 days after the filing of the note of issue on August 24, 2011. All rights reserved. However, the City gave no explanation for why its motion was made close to a year after the trial calendar papers were filed. Burns v Gonzalez, 307 AD2d 863, 864-865 [1st Dept 2003]; Garrison v City of New York, 300 AD2d 14, 15 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). I simply note that Brill is inapposite to the facts of this matter and that both the decision and the statute it construes apply only to a party whose motion has the effect of staying and delaying trial. Contact; Help; Partners; Blog; Press; Product; . FOX REHABILITATION - 11 Photos & 12 Reviews - 7 Carnegie Plz, Cherry According to the patient notes, the examining physician found severe upper extremity atrophy. Dr. Michael M. Alexiades is an orthopedist in Lake Success, New York and is affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area, including Hospital for Special Surgery and New York-Presbyterian. Electronic tests revealed that plaintiff's cervical condition was significantly the same as in 2005 which supported Dr. Hecht's post surgical findings. Rote application of the summary judgment provision, which permits the court to "set a date after which no such motion may be made," leads to the result advocated by the majority strict rejection of the motion as untimely without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, relegating the moving party to litigating its position at trial. On November 19, 2004, the clinic notes indicate that Frelinghuysen planned to review the patient films with Girardi and "we will plan for an anterior cervical decompression and fusion at a later date." HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. Dr. Michael B. Cross, MD | Michael B. Cross, MD, New York, NY Dr. Murphy stated that the delays were a departure from the standards of good medical practice. Hospital For Special Surgery. Co., LLC (48 AD3d 337 [1st Dept 2008]), for the principle that there is an exception to Brill for cases where a late motion or cross motion is essentially duplicative of a timely motion. Sinai, and the only change in his condition was numbness in his right arm and hand, likely due to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome. Featured Providers Near You Dr. Brian Anthony Cole, MD Your email address will not be published. Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. Dr. Michael B. In July 2005, he was examined by an orthopedic surgeon who determined that plaintiff needed surgery to prevent his condition from worsening, not in order to regain function. In that regard, the majority's disposition is antithetical, directing a party to try a case under circumstances to which Brill is inapposite because trial has been delayed not by an eleventh-hour summary judgment motion, but by one that is altogether timely. 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. florida math book ban examples - foyerhub.com Cross, MD . Cross, MD 523 E 72nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10021 Patient reviews All reviews have been submitted by patients after seeing the provider. If you need help finding an appropriate doctor who takes your insurance, contact our HSSConnect at 877.606.1555. ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]). It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is "good cause shown" for the delay. Dr. Olsewski opined that based upon plaintiff's medical, diagnostic and surgical history, further cervical surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option." . In December 1994, plaintiff had surgery at HSS to address multilevel cervical stenosis with myelopathy and radiculopathy, a condition that existed for a period of time which caused plaintiff continuous weakness of his upper extremities including left shoulder. 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. Ins. Dr. Michael Cross, MD: Orthopedic Surgeon - New York, NY - Medical News Cross is an orthopedist in Lafayette, Indiana. The cross movant may rely on the papers submitted with the main motion to support the relief sought. Given the budgetary constraints presently confronted by the court system, this is hardly a fitting time to require trial of a matter devoid of apparent merit and otherwise amenable to disposition on motion, and the "genuine need" to be accommodated is that of the court to proceed expeditiously (id.). Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit in May 2007, claiming medical malpractice and failure to secure informed consent. The course adopted by plaintiff of locating a medical team possessing the requisite skills at a hospital equipped with the appropriate facilities represents a seemingly optimal outcome which, as a matter of policy, should not be compromised by the threat of litigation. Sinai Hospital in December 2005, with no objective sign of improvement in physical function after over 10 months, according to his surgeon's report and tests taken at HJD's neurology clinic in October, 2006. 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. Dr. Michael B. Cross, MD | Lafayette, IN | Orthopedist | US News Doctors Removal of Skunks, Raccoons, Squirrels, Bats, Snakes, and More! The NPI number of this provider is 1235397043 and was assigned on May 2008. Hospital for Special Surgery Florida | Orthopaedic Services | Fort Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY Copyright 2023 OrthoIndy. Of course, it must be pointed out that the cross-movant would have good cause for its late motion in that situation, and the cross motion would be evaluated on its merits (see e.g. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. The value of enforcing the terms of the statute as written is that attorneys will make sure their motions are timely filed or that there is a good reason for the lateness. This is also reflected in their individual motion papers. Logically, if plaintiff did not sustain injury as a result of HJD's February 2005 decision, it follows that he did not sustain injury as a result of the similar December 2004 determination, approximately 2 months earlier, by HSS physicians to forego surgery, especially in light of plaintiff's long history of [*13]cervical disc disease. The practice sought to be deterred in Brill is delay occasioned by the submission of a summary judgment motion on the eve of trial, thereby staying proceedings to the prejudice of litigants who have applied their resources in preparation for trial of the issues (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. On April 11, 2003, an MRI revealed a narrowing of the spinal canal and the neural foramen with disc protrusions. Diseases & Conditions Procedures & Tests Symptoms & Signs. He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. The dissent considers our application of Brill in this instance to be "rote," and that our interpretation is antithetical to that decision's policy considerations of preventing eve-of-trial summary judgment motions. I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding and would dismiss plaintiff's claim of medical malpractice against defendants Hospital for Special Surgery and its physicians (collectively, HSS).