After surgery, Dr. Hecht observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving." HSS also argued that the claim of lack of informed consent should be dismissed, given that no procedure requiring consent had been performed. In James, the defendant moved for summary judgment and the codefendant served its cross motion late but before the original motion had been decided; James held that the untimely cross motion should have been considered as the original motion was still pending and both could have been decided together. 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). "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon, New York, New York. This was supported by Dr. Hecht's finding that there was no substantial neurological improvement in plaintiff's condition after his surgery at Mt. In opposing the "cross motion," the plaintiff argued that it was untimely, and, secondarily, that it was devoid of merit. 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. The surgery consisted of a decompressive laminoplasty at C3-C7, bone graft reconstruction at C3-C6, and halo vest application. Thus, his opinion is an ambiguous statement of causation, amounting to bare conjecture, which is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728-729 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408, 410-411 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. Quite likely, the City's legal argument would have been dispositive. ), entered July 16, 2012, affirmed, without costs. ", As to the delay causing any injury, the doctor stated that there was no identifiable injury caused by any alleged delay during the four month period between when plaintiff was first seen at HJD and when he first went to Mt. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea The Best of the Best in Orthopedic Surgery. 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). 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. 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. HSS appealed from the denial of its "cross motion" and plaintiff cross-appealed from the grant of HJD's motion. His specialties include Orthopedic Surgeon. The practice sought to be deterred in Brill is delay occasioned by the submission of a summary judgment motion on the eve of trial, thereby staying proceedings to the prejudice of litigants who have applied their resources in preparation for trial of the issues (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). The progress notes from June 25, 2005 indicate, in part, that he had "marked stenosis throughout spine," and "marked atrophy at both shoulder girdles." 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 Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY The majority thereby dispenses with the salutary aspects of summary disposition acknowledged in Brill for no apparent purpose. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. As the Court of Appeals has admonished, " No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided, and no judge can write freely if every sentence is to be taken as a rule of law separate from its association'" (Matter of Staber v Fidler, 65 NY2d 529, 535 [1985], quoting Dougherty v Equitable Life Assur. In Brill the Court of Appeals indicated that late-filed summary judgment motions are "another example of sloppy practice threatening our judicial system" (2 NY3d at 652, emphasis added), and pointed to its earlier decision, Kihl v Pfeffer (94 NY2d 118 [1999]), which affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to respond to a court order within the court-ordered time frame. It is a distorted analysis of my position. However, for reasons bereft of any sound basis in law or judicial policy, it refuses, primarily on procedural grounds, to apply the same reasoning to dismiss the complaint as against HSS. Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]). ), entered July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Hospital for Special Surgery, Peter Frelinghuysen, and Federico Pablo Girardi (collectively HSS) only to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claim of lack of informed consent, and otherwise denied the motion, and from the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, dismissing the complaint as against defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P.TOM, J.P. (dissenting in part). The motion court granted defendant HJD's motion for summary judgment and denied HSS's motion for the same relief. Mobile Navigation Menu. ], 5 NY3d 514 [2005], citing Brill [dismissal after ongoing failure to comply with discovery orders]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Lapin relied on Altschuler v Gramatan Mgt., Inc. (27 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2006]), which held it proper to consider the untimely "cross motion," in particular because it was "largely based" on the same arguments raised in the timely motion for summary judgment, and the same findings would apply for both it and the timely motion. 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. 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. Both HSS and HJD established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, proffering evidence that plaintiff did not sustain any injury resulting from the respective institutions' independent decisions to recommend against further surgery. Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. In particular, the records suggest that HSS believed surgery was appropriate and helpful in as early as 2003, surgery is repeatedly mentioned in the records of 2004, and plaintiff believed that surgery had been scheduled. However, the Court of Appeals intended no such exception, and to the extent this Court has created one, it did so, whether knowingly or unwittingly, by relying on precedents which predate Brill and which, if followed, will continue to perpetuate a culture of delay. 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. Find expert care and book online. [FN3] James, in turn, relied on Rosa v R.H. Macy Co. (272 AD2d 87 [1st Dept 2000]), where Macy moved for summary judgment and two other defendants untimely cross-moved against it for indemnity; the motion and another timely cross motion were still pending, and we held that the untimely cross motions should have been considered. In April 2003, plaintiff again returned because he was experiencing increased weakness in his right upper arm. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. 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]). 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. In that regard, the majority's disposition is antithetical, directing a party to try a case under circumstances to which Brill is inapposite because trial has been delayed not by an eleventh-hour summary judgment motion, but by one that is altogether timely. Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill. The HSS "cross motion," which runs from page 842 to page 1002 of the record on appeal, is comprised of many items not contained in the HJD motion papers, not the least of which is additional medical records not submitted by HJD. In sum, an outdated, pre-Brill interpretation of the amended CPLR 3212(a) continued to hold sway in Lapin. As a point of reference, the statutory 120-day maximum expired on December 22, 2011. Find Providers by Condition. Plaintiff cites no precedent for imposing liability under these circumstances, and no comparable New York case has been located. Remote Second Opinion Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. But to reject the motion on that ground, under the facts herein, ignores the adverse consequences of imposing an overly restrictive rule, specifically, consequences that are especially adverse to the courts. Jewish-Hillside Med. Financial Disclosures. The evidence will be construed in the light most favorable to the one moved against (see Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Menu. Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. Sinai orthopedic surgeon observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving.". ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall Likewise, there is no indication that plaintiff was prepared to undergo the procedure prior to October 2004, when he first consulted with Dr. Freylinghuysen. with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. The best working with the best. Diet & Weight Management Plaintiff was a patient a much longer time at HSS than at HJD, surgery was positively discussed by the HSS defendants, and thus there are factual differences between the two defendants' treatments. Contrary to the majority's assertion, I do not advocate limiting application "of Brill to those actions where a party files a motion for summary judgment long after the deadline for dispositive motions and the matter is on the trial calendar." As most recently articulated in Gibbs: hurley joggers womens; sink clips not long enough; viewsonic vx3276 mhd reset; usaa dental insurance number; dr michael cross leaving hss. Were the motions properly labeled they would not be judicially considered without an explanation for the delay. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion 541 East 71st Street New York, NY 10021 Physicians at this location Specialties Family Medicine Orthopedic Spine Surgery Orthopedic Surgery. Sinai where plaintiff later underwent a two stage revision cervical laminectomy with fusion. HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. Dr. Michael Allen Cross 5053 Wooster Rd Cincinnati, OH 45226. Dr. Olsewski opined that based upon plaintiff's medical, diagnostic and surgical history, further cervical surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option." While courts have deemed this mislabeling a "technical" defect which will be disregarded, particularly where the nonmovant does not object and it results in no prejudice to the nonmoving party (see Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d 403, 404 [2d Dept 2004]), in this case the nature of nonmovant plaintiff's opposition is that there was prejudice because to the extent the court deems HSS's motion a cross motion, the Brill rule is ignored. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons HSS Florida is a joint venture with Tenet Healthcare. A late motion filing is properly entertained when it raises nearly identical issues to one timely made (see Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. 523 e 72nd st attention: michael cross, m.d. 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. Allowing movants to file untimely, mislabeled "cross motions" without good cause shown for the delay, affords them an unfair and improper advantage. Michael M. Alexiades, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Uniondale Call for an appointment 212.774.7557 Michael P. Ast, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Paramus Call for an appointment 201.599.8056 Jason L. Blevins, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Westchester Call for an appointment 212.606.1248 A cross motion is "merely a motion by any party against the party who made the original motion, made returnable at the same time as the original motion" (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1; see CPLR 2215). The result will be judicial economy, as well as lawyerly economy. In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Under the circumstances presented by this matter, this view constitutes an unnecessarily rigid application of [*14]CPLR 3212(a), contravening the sound policy considerations underlying the decision and the intent expressed by the Legislature in amending the statute. Sinai. MichaelPaulAstMDFAAOS Orthopaedic Surgery New York, NY Hip & Knee Reconstructive Surgery Assistant Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Chief Medical Innovation Officer Vice Chair, HSS Innovation Institute Hospital for Special Surgery Join to view full profile Office 541 East 71st Street 6th Floor New York, NY 10021 Phone+1 201-599-8056 He was no longer working and was receiving social security disability benefits. Sinai. Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. Request an Appointment 317.275.6191 (Fax: 317.884.5360) Meet Dr. Michael Cross Dr. Cross earned his bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002.
Theme Park Tycoon 2 Uncopylocked, Cat C15 Fan Clutch Won't Engage, The Farmer Poem, Dodgers Stadium Club Menu, Articles D