You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Steiner v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center

Citations: 241 A.D.2d 516; 663 N.Y.S.2d 981; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7792

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 21, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order and judgment favoring the defendants, Brookdale Hospital Medical Center and Dr. Joel Teicher. The appeal concerning the order was dismissed as it pertained to a non-appealable trial ruling found in the trial minutes. The judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed, with costs awarded to them. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against the hospital because the evidence did not demonstrate that Dr. Teicher was acting within the scope of an employment or agency relationship with Brookdale Hospital. Instead, Dr. Teicher operated as an independent physician, having been referred by the plaintiff's treating physician, and provided care both pre- and post-surgery independently. The court further noted that the plaintiff's additional arguments were either procedurally barred from appellate review or lacked substantive merit. Consequently, the court upheld the original judgment, effectively absolving the defendants of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appealability of Trial Rulings

Application: The appeal from the trial order was dismissed as it was not appealable, being a ruling recorded in the trial minutes.

Reasoning: The appeal from the order is dismissed because it is not appealable, being a trial ruling recorded in the trial minutes.

Preservation of Arguments for Appeal

Application: The court noted that the plaintiff's additional arguments were either not preserved for review or lacked merit.

Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff's other arguments were either not preserved for appeal or lacked merit.

Prima Facie Case Requirement in Medical Malpractice

Application: The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against the hospital as necessary evidence of an employment or agency relationship between the hospital and Dr. Teicher was not provided.

Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case against Brookdale Hospital.

Respondeat Superior in Medical Malpractice

Application: Brookdale Hospital cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior as Dr. Teicher was acting as an independent physician, not as an employee or agent of the hospital.

Reasoning: Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of its physicians only if they act within an employment or agency relationship.