Skip to main content. [*2]Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and Shoshana T. Bookson, New York, for respondent-appellant. Your email address will not be published. Footnote 1:Girardi testified that the notation that he and Frelinghuysen had recommended any particular surgery was "incorrect." Michael B. The notes also indicate that this doctor explained to plaintiff that the reason to do surgery would be to prevent worsening of his symptoms. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion in New York, NY Specialties. Find expert care and book online. Dr. Murphy conclusively states that plaintiff's condition progressively deteriorated during the period of treatment at defendant hospitals, yet he points to no objective evidence supporting this statement, despite the fact that the record contains numerous diagnostic tests over that period of time. In the opinion of HJD's expert, surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option," as no surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's "significant" neurological deficits that had existed for many years. Tel: (212) 606-1000. Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." An MRI taken of his right shoulder in May 2005 showed "severe atrophy" of certain muscles and "mild atrophy" of other muscles, "likely due to the patient's cervical myelomalacia." Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon, New York, New York. Brill emphasizes that summary judgment is advantageous to the parties by "avoiding needless litigation cost and delay" and constitutes "a great benefit both to the parties and to the overburdened New York State trial courts" since it "may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Get free summaries of new New York Appellate Division, First Department opinions delivered to your inbox! McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. FEINMAN, J. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 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. Opinion by Feinman, J. Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery About eight years later, in March 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS complaining of lower back pain and severe left leg pain; he was treated with a course of steroid injections. 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. Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve as a question of fact whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff" (citing Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]).

Carrier Furnace Yellow Light Codes, What Is Indignity To A Dead Human Body, Milford Cinema Milford, Mi, Articles D