Narrative Opinion Summary
In this medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court of Bronx County addressed several motions related to the statute of limitations and procedural issues. The court initially dismissed the complaint against two defendants, Liebert and Mandel, due to the statute of limitations and denied the plaintiff's request for a late notice of medical malpractice. Similarly, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, effectively dismissing the claims against the hospital. However, upon review, the court modified its orders, reinstating the complaint against Dr. Mandel and Misericordia. The key factor in this decision was the acknowledgment of continuous treatment provided by Dr. Mandel to the infant plaintiff, which potentially constituted a separate cause of action. The court also highlighted a factual issue concerning Dr. Mandel's employment by Misericordia, which could influence liability. The decision was rendered without costs, with concurrence from Justices Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias, and Colabella.
Legal Issues Addressed
Continuous Treatment Doctrine in Medical Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court recognized that the continuous treatment received by the plaintiff from Dr. Mandel could justify a separate cause of action, thus reinstating the complaint against him.
Reasoning: Dr. Mandel acknowledged providing treatment to the infant plaintiff during nine office visits from October 20, 1983, to March 15, 1985, which the plaintiff claims was negligent.
Employment Relationship and Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court identified a factual question regarding Dr. Mandel's employment status with Misericordia, which could affect the hospital's liability for his alleged negligence.
Reasoning: The court noted that there remains a factual question regarding whether Dr. Mandel was an employee of Misericordia at the time of treatment, as all medical care was reportedly provided at Misericordia’s clinic.
Statute of Limitations in Medical Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court initially dismissed the complaint against defendants Liebert and Mandel based on the statute of limitations, but later reinstated it against Mandel after acknowledging ongoing treatment.
Reasoning: The court granted the motion of defendants Liebert and Mandel to dismiss the complaint based on Statute of Limitations grounds and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for a late notice of medical malpractice under CPLR 3406.
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center's motion for summary judgment was granted, reflecting the court's agreement that there was no sufficient legal basis to proceed with claims against the hospital based on the statute of limitations.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court granted Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center's motion for summary judgment on similar grounds and denied the plaintiff's motion for renewal of her cross-motion.