Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Reeck v. Huntington Hospital
Citations: 215 A.D.2d 464; 626 N.Y.S.2d 516; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4853
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 8, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
In a medical malpractice case, defendants William Ciaravino and John Brooks appealed a June 14, 1993 order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against them. The court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint against Ciaravino and Brooks while severing the action against the remaining defendants. The plaintiffs, Thomas Reeck (an infant) and his mother, Judith Reeck, claimed that Thomas's injuries during childbirth resulted from the negligence of Dr. Edward Weigers, who delivered him. They further alleged a partnership or agency relationship between Drs. Weigers and John Meagher, and Drs. Ciaravino and Brooks, who had provided care during Judith's pregnancy. Ciaravino and Brooks argued that their relationship with Weigers and Meagher was limited to a reciprocal coverage arrangement, meaning they could not be vicariously liable for Weigers's actions. The court noted that liability between physicians is typically confined to recognized legal relationships such as partnership or agency, and that mere agreements for mutual coverage do not establish such relationships. The evidence indicated that Ciaravino and Brooks only covered for each other when necessary, which did not equate to partnership or concerted treatment. Ultimately, since there were no grounds for vicarious liability for Weigers's actions, the Supreme Court's initial denial of the summary judgment motion was deemed erroneous. The appellate court's decision was supported by precedents that emphasize the need for a traditional legal relationship to impose liability among physicians. The ruling was affirmed by the concurring judges.