Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) President and CEO Louis A. Shapiro and Surgeon-in Chief and Medical Director Bryan T. Kelly, MD, today announced the appointment of Michael P. Ast, MD, hip and knee replacement surgeon and assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, as the new Vice-Chair of the HSS Innovation Institute and Chief Medical This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. Mystery solved: Extell is building a 30-story, 400,000-square-foot medical tower. Cross, MD. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a orthopedic surgery specialist in New York, NY. Sinai. Plaintiff continued to complain of cervical and lumbar discomfort and worsening of the pre-existing weakness in his right upper extremity. Moreover, "because of a phenomenon called rebound myelopathy, an operation . After review of the MRI, he determined that no further surgery for the cervical spine was indicated and that there should be no lumbar spine surgery "at this time." Thus, there were issues of fact raised "as to the advisability of surgery sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment on the merits.". Nor is this court's recent holding in Levinson v Mollah (105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]) on point. Dr. Ast is affiliated with Hospital For Special Surgery and Hospital for Special Surgery. The argument that HSS's motion should be considered on the merits because it "sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion," ignores the distinction in the CPLR between motions and cross motions and perpetuates an increasingly played end run around the Court of Appeals' bright line rule in Brill. Under the circumstances presented, the motion court was within its discretion to review HSS's motion on the merits (see Alexander, 95 AD3d at 1247; Grande, 39 AD3d at 591-529). Nevertheless, the court observed that plaintiff's expert Dr. Michael J. Murphy clearly opined that the surgery was necessary, not so much to improve plaintiffs's condition, but to prevent it from worsening. Plaintiff was referred for pain management and to HJD's neurology and hand clinics, with the notation that "no further surgery for the cervical spine [was] indicated.". Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution. Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. In 1994, when plaintiff was 53 years old, he underwent spinal surgery at defendant Hospital for Special Surgery, to address multilevel cervical stenosis with myelopathy and radiculopathy, which, over the course of five years, had led to progressive weakness in his left shoulder and upper extremities. Michael B. Of course, it must be pointed out that the cross-movant would have good cause for its late motion in that situation, and the cross motion would be evaluated on its merits (see e.g. Cross, MD . carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea Our decision is not one on the merits of plaintiff's claim, and it is therefore premature to bemoan that we have opened a Pandora's box for surgeons. The best that surgery could do was stop the myelopathy, but there was risk of permanent paralysis or death, "well beyond the standard for such risks for cervical spine cases." I am returning on Oct 9, 2020, for my left knee and am actually looking forward to it. Indeed, in our view, the dissent wrongly interprets the statute by claiming that the "good cause shown" prong is not always a part of the CPLR 3212(a) analysis. As defendant Hospital for Special Surgery (together with codefendants Frelinghuysen and Girardi, HSS) concedes, its cross motion was untimely, and it did not allege any good cause for its delay. 523 e 72nd st attention: michael cross, m.d. Dr. Anthony Petrizzo of HJD examined plaintiff on February 11, 2005, finding severe upper extremity atrophy, with deltoid strength at 1/5, and 2/5 strength to the biceps. Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well" (16 NY3d at 81). Find Providers by Condition. Your email address will not be published. Altschuler, in turn, relied on a pre-Brill decision, James v Jamie Towers Hous. Dr. Michael M. Alexiades is an orthopedist in Lake Success, New York and is affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area, including Hospital for Special Surgery and New York-Presbyterian. On March 24, 2016, Dr. Machler reported the results of a weeklong skin patch test, in which plaintiff was exposed to 121 allergens against the skin of his back. Skip to main content. Dr. Michael B. In response, plaintiff's expert merely averred that if the subject cervical revision surgery had been performed earlier, plaintiff's ultimate outcome would have been substantially improved and he would not have sustained such a severe degree of weakness and loss of function of his right upper extremity. In June 2004, plaintiff returned to HSS with continuing complaints of progressive right shoulder weakness, increased neck pain and decreased balance. The dissent expresses concern about an extra burden to the courts and litigants if we strictly enforce Brill "without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case." Visit Website. Co., 95 AD3d 568, 560 [1st Dept 2012] [court's clerical error, [*10]explained through an affidavit of the paralegal, provided good cause for granting the motion seeking renewal of the motion for summary judgment]). Dr. Michael B. The clinic notes indicated that plaintiff "need[ed] a decompression at C3-4, C4-5 and C6-7," that "probably" this would be done in an anterior approach, and that "surgery will be booked in the near future." The surgery consisted of a decompressive laminoplasty at C3-C7, bone graft reconstruction at C3-C6, and halo vest application. The answer is yes. with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. With the advantage of hindsight, the doctor offers that "[w]hile further diagnostic studies were not inappropriate, they did not contribute any substantial information which would alter the indicated treatment." Strict and rigid application of Brill is even less understandable given the similarity of the grounds advanced by the respective hospitals in support of their summary judgment motions and the ground upon which disposition rests. Dr. Michael Brian Cross has 13 locations Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46278 (317) 802-2000 ACCEPTING NEW PATIENTS Michael Cross MD 535 E 70th St Fl 7 Ste 710 New York, NY 10021 (212) 774-2114 Dr. Michael Cross' Practice 523 E 72nd St Fl 7 New York, NY 10021 (212) 774-2127 Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. By notice of cross motion dated January 10, 2012, HSS moved for summary judgment and dismissal, relying on HJD's expert's affidavit and that of defendant Girardi. I simply note that Brill is inapposite to the facts of this matter and that both the decision and the statute it construes apply only to a party whose motion has the effect of staying and delaying trial. Dr. Cross completed his internship at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in 2007 and his residency at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York in 2012 where he was awarded the Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award and the Jean McDaniel Award, which is given to the Chief Resident who best demonstrates leadership, professionalism and ethics in the care of patients. Dr. Michael Alexiades, MD - Lake Success, NY | Orthopaedic Surgery MichaelMAlexiadesMD Orthopaedic Surgery Lake Success, NY Hip & Knee Reconstructive Surgery Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Cornell University-Weill Medical College Join to view full profile Office 2800 Marcus avenue Lake success, NY Lake Success, NY 11042 Burns v Gonzalez, 307 AD2d 863, 864-865 [1st Dept 2003]; Garrison v City of New York, 300 AD2d 14, 15 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). In opposition plaintiff's expert did not offer an opinion as to what specific injury plaintiff endured as a result of HJD's decision not to perform surgery and made only broad conjectures which were insufficient to defeat HJD's motion (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. Moreover, the exception discussed in Filannino allowing the courts to consider proper but untimely cross motions, at least as to issues shared with the original motion, addresses the dissent's concern that a cross-moving party might be caused to file its motion late because it had insufficient time before the deadline occurred. dr michael cross leaving hss. According to the affidavit, Murphy reviewed the medical records and opined that surgery for plaintiff was "indicated as early as June 2003 when the diagnosis of cervical spondylitic myelopathy was made," and from that time until December 2005 when surgery was performed, plaintiff's neurological condition deteriorated. The dissent considers our application of Brill in this instance to be "rote," and that our interpretation is antithetical to that decision's policy considerations of preventing eve-of-trial summary judgment motions. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Even if we were to find that the Court of Appeals intended for an exception to be carved out of Brill for incorrectly labeled "me too cross motions," that is, motions relying on the arguments and evidence of the originally filed motions, to the extent HSS's motion against a nonmoving party can be properly considered such a motion, the motion court correctly found that it is not merely a duplication of HJD's timely motion. Here, HJD's submission of its moving papers a mere three days before the final date set by the trial court contravenes the spirit of Brill by depriving HSS of an adequate opportunity to timely file its own application for similar relief because, at such point in time, HSS is presumed to have been devoting its resources to preparation for trial (Brill, 2 NY2d at 651). Footnote 4: The dissent overlooks the very different lengths of treatment offered to plaintiff by HSS and HJD. This is an aberrant medical malpractice action brought against two hospitals for declining to provide additional surgical treatment to plaintiff because, in their estimation, further surgical intervention presented an unjustifiable risk of quadriplegia or death and offered little to no prospect of relieving his symptomatology. The motion by HJD was submitted on November 11, 2011, three days before the deadline of November 14, 2011 imposed by the motion court under CPLR 3212(a). Dr. Murphy stated that the delays were a departure from the standards of good medical practice. Sinai, where he was first seen in the orthopedic clinic on April 21, 2005. Significantly, Brill deals with the straightforward situation in which an initial summary judgment motion is filed well after a matter has been certified as ready for trial "in violation of legislative mandate" (id. for cervical spine cases. It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is "good cause shown" for the delay. Sinai Hospital in December 2005, with no objective sign of improvement in physical function after over 10 months, according to his surgeon's report and tests taken at HJD's neurology clinic in October, 2006. by Peter Gordon. In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. Co., LLC, 48 AD3d 337, 337 [1st Dept 2008]; Alexander v Gordon, 95 AD3d 1245, 1246-1247 [2d Dept 2012]; Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592 [2d Dept 2007]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER On the merits, discounting the supporting opinion of plaintiff's expert as conclusory, the majority finds that the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff suffered no injury as a result of HJD's February 2005 determination that surgical intervention was unwarranted. FIND A DOCTOR. Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Dr. Michael Brian Cross, MD Orthopedic Surgery Leave a review Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd, Indianapolis, IN, 46278 12 other locations (317) 802-2000 Overview Locations OVERVIEW. Plaintiff cites no precedent for imposing liability under these circumstances, and no comparable New York case has been located. It is true that since Brill was decided, this Court has held, on many occasions, that an untimely but correctly labeled cross motion may be considered at least as to the issues that are the same in both it and the motion, without needing to show good cause (see e.g. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. Orthopaedic Research Society, Make an appointment with Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit in May 2007, claiming medical malpractice and failure to secure informed consent. In that context, where "[t]he violation is clear," the "good cause" required to obtain relief from the statutory time limit is "a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness" in filing the motion (id. Education VANDERBILT UNIV SCH OF MED, Medical School 2006 The doctor also noted that plaintiff did not objectively regain any strength or function after having the surgery at Mt. Tue 7:00 am . and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. According to Girardi, after viewing the films, in his opinion the severity of plaintiff's spinal disease and the low prospect of improvement did not warrant the risks of surgery. Footnote 1: To reiterate, it was the timely motion by HJD that delayed trial, not the motion submitted by HSS while HJD's motion was pending, a situation addressed neither by the statute nor Brill. It reasons that because Brill emphasizes the advantages of summary judgment, with which we of course agree, those advantages outweigh a consistent application of the statute. In addressing this problem, the Court of Appeals noted that "the Legislature struck a balance, setting an outside limit on the time for filing summary judgment motions, but allowing the courts latitude to set an alternative limit or to consider untimely motions to accommodate genuine need" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). If you need help finding an appropriate doctor who takes your insurance, contact our HSSConnect at 877.606.1555. Michael B. FEINMAN, J. Your email address will not be published. HJD met its burden of showing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, proffering evidence that plaintiff was not caused to suffer any injury between February 2005 when HJD found that surgery was not indicated, and April 2005 when he first consulted with Mt. Electrical studies performed on October 26, 2006 revealed no significant change from those done in 2005 although there was evidence of fibrotic changes; [*4]the studies showed the presence of moderate right and mild left carpal tunnel syndrome. Brill holds that to rein in these late motions, brought as late as shortly before trial, CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment must be brought within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue or the time established by the court; where a motion is untimely, the movant must show good cause for the delay, otherwise the late motion will not be addressed (see Isolabella v Sapir, 96 AD3d 427, 427 [1st Dept 2012]). Rote application of the summary judgment provision, which permits the court to "set a date after which no such motion may be made," leads to the result advocated by the majority strict rejection of the motion as untimely without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, relegating the moving party to litigating its position at trial. The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. At a follow-up visit in June 2003, he was told that he might not fully recover his right arm motor loss; he was "somewhat disappointed" but acknowledged that his 1994 surgery had a similar result as to his left side. [*9]. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. . Because of the particular procedural posture of this matter, the order directing that it proceed to trial is ultimately futile, but application of the majority's rationale will unnecessarily burden both courts and litigants. In July, 2005, plaintiff saw orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Hecht of Mt. As a point of reference, the statutory 120-day maximum expired on December 22, 2011. 211 likes. Opinion by Feinman, J. The clinic notes also indicate that plaintiff told the examining physician that he had recently secured a job and was not interested "whatsoever" in immediate surgery; plaintiff disputes this and says he was not working at that time.
Sandwell Council Housing, Pincho Factory Pincho Burger Calories, Small Warehouse Space Columbus Ohio, Pragmatic Sampling Advantages And Disadvantages, Land With A Barn For Sale Near Me, Articles D