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.
Jordan v. Glens Falls Hospital
Citations: 261 A.D.2d 666; 689 N.Y.S.2d 538; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4697
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 6, 1999; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made from a Supreme Court order that denied Richard Saunders’ motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case brought by Grace A. Jordan. The incident arose from treatment received in December 1992 for a finger laceration caused by a can lid, where Saunders closed the wound and provided care instructions. Although the finger initially healed, Jordan later developed cellulitis and osteomyelitis in her ankle, which she claimed was due to Saunders’ negligence in failing to prescribe antibiotics, given her prior chemotherapy and radiation for Hodgkin’s disease, which she argued compromised her immune system. In support of his motion for summary judgment, Saunders submitted affidavits from himself and a medical expert stating that antibiotics were unnecessary since Jordan showed no signs of infection, and her past medical history was irrelevant to her treatment. The court found that Saunders met his burden for summary relief, shifting the onus to Jordan to present admissible evidence of material issues of fact. Jordan’s initial evidence relied on an affidavit from a pharmacologist, Jack Rosenberg, who suggested that antibiotics should have been prescribed. However, the court deemed this affidavit inadmissible as Rosenberg was not a medical doctor, and thus his opinion lacked the necessary medical expertise. Additionally, Jordan submitted a physician's affidavit that Saunders contended was untimely. The court allowed this affidavit, noting that misunderstandings about the issues addressed by the parties justified the delay. The physician's affidavit supported the claim of inadequate treatment. Ultimately, the court concluded that the physician's affidavit raised triable issues of fact, affirming the lower court's order and denying Saunders’ motion for summary judgment. The ruling emphasized the importance of competent medical opinions in malpractice cases and allowed for the consideration of the physician's affidavit despite timing concerns. The order was affirmed with costs.