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.

Hazel v. Montefiore Medical Center

Citations: 243 A.D.2d 344; 663 N.Y.S.2d 165; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10173

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

Narrative Opinion Summary

Judgment from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, which alleged that the decedent suffered injuries after discharge from the defendants’ care in August 1987 due to lack of informed consent regarding cancer treatment. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of purposeful concealment by the defendants that would justify delaying the filing of the lawsuit. As a result, the two-year six-month Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice and informed consent claims (CPLR 214-a) was applicable. The court also determined that other claims presented were essentially restatements of the dismissed claims and were therefore time-barred. Additionally, the claim for loss of consortium was dismissed as it was derivative of the other claims.

Legal Issues Addressed

Derivative Claims and Statute of Limitations

Application: The claim for loss of consortium was dismissed because it was contingent upon the primary claims, which were time-barred.

Reasoning: Additionally, the claim for loss of consortium was dismissed as it was derivative of the other claims.

Lack of Evidence for Fraudulent Concealment

Application: Plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of deliberate concealment by the defendants, which would have justified tolling the statute of limitations.

Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of purposeful concealment by the defendants that would justify delaying the filing of the lawsuit.

Restatement of Time-Barred Claims

Application: The court identified that other claims presented by the plaintiffs were essentially restatements of the main claims and thus also subject to dismissal as time-barred.

Reasoning: The court also determined that other claims presented were essentially restatements of the dismissed claims and were therefore time-barred.

Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice

Application: The court applied the two-year six-month statute of limitations period for medical malpractice claims, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint as time-barred.

Reasoning: As a result, the two-year six-month Statute of Limitations for medical malpractice and informed consent claims (CPLR 214-a) was applicable.