This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Plaintiff filed his note of issue on August 24, 2011. If you need help finding an appropriate doctor who takes your insurance, contact our HSSConnect at 877.606.1555. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his. MedicineNet. "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). Dr. Cross is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery. Tramways in le-de-France - Wikipedia Michael CROSS | Assistant Attending Orthopaedic Surgeon | Hospital for 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. 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. 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. "It is well settled that the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts' (Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 187 [1987]). Orthopedic surgeon to know: Dr. Michael B. Cross of Hospital for Socy., 266 NY 71, 88 [1934]). HSS Alumni Association Newsletter: Fall 2009 DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT, DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT, Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award Footnote 4: The dissent overlooks the very different lengths of treatment offered to plaintiff by HSS and HJD. ", 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. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. The course adopted by plaintiff of locating a medical team possessing the requisite skills at a hospital equipped with the appropriate facilities represents a seemingly optimal outcome which, as a matter of policy, should not be compromised by the threat of litigation. According to plaintiff, he understood that surgery would be performed in late December, and he began obtaining the necessary medical clearances. 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. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary judgment in his or her favor (GTF Mktg., Inc. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]). The authorized official title is Physician and has the following contact phone number (212) 774-2114. To the extent that good cause is even material under these circumstances, it is the sheer impossibility of preparing a dispositive motion during the remaining time established by the court for its submission. Everyone was professional. 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. Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. fact, barring summary resolution. Diseases & Conditions Procedures & Tests Symptoms & Signs. 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. A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. Particularly, the majority holds that the summary judgment motion interposed by HSS was untimely and beyond the motion court's power to entertain pursuant to Brill. Likewise, the legislative memorandum in support of the amendment to CPLR 3212(a) is concerned with the disruption to court calendars by a motion interposed on the eve of trial (Sponsor's Mem, L. 1996, ch 492 reprinted in 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 2432-2433). Health insurers that provide access to Hospital for Special Surgery (click the insurance company name for more details) Aetna Affinity by Molina Healthcare Blue Cross Blue Shield - Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield - Horizon Your email address will not be published. All rights reserved. New York Presbyterian Hospital Internship, Preliminary Year, 2006 . Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). By making a cross motion, the party saves an extra day in court, and quite possibly the time and trouble of amassing fresh proof, if it happens that all or part of the evidentiary foundation on which the cross motion is based has already been produced for consideration (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1, 2215:2). . 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." He underwent a course of steroid injections. 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. He then attended medical school at Vanderbilt University, graduating in 2006. Hip, knee surgeons with NYC's best value outcomes at HSS I even liked the food I compared it to high-end diner fare). Type a specific doctor's name, body part, procedure or condition, then choose from the options. Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. 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). Parker v LIJMC-Satellite Dialysis Facility, 92 AD3d 740, 741-742 [2d Dept 2012] [failure to receive significant outstanding discovery before the deadline for making motion for summary judgment provides good cause for allowing a late-filed motion for summary judgment]; see also Kase v H.E.E. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea OrthoIndy Hospital is physician-owned and operated. 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. OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. 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. The motion court properly dismissed the case as against HJD. We help patients restore the quality of life they deserve and desire. Footnote 3: In Cadichon v Facelle (18 NY3d 230 [2011]), the Court reversed a "ministerial" dismissal based on the failure to timely file the note of issue because the trial court did not provide notice to the parties or issue a formal order; the decision notes that the record showed that neither set of parties acted "with expediency in moving the case forward," and that deadlines must not be disregarded (id. Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a question of fact requiring a trial (Kosson v Algaze, 84 NY2d 1019 [1995]). FOX REHABILITATION - 11 Photos & 12 Reviews - 7 Carnegie Plz, Cherry According to Dr. Olsewski, the best case scenario "was to stop further progression of the cervical myelopathy"; the worst could have resulted in permanent paralysis or death, risks "well beyond the standard. 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. Was seen ahead of scheduled appointment time. Opinion by Feinman, J. Appellate Division, First Department Visit Website. When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is issue finding rather than issue determination (see Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). Lapin is one in a line of cases holding that an untimely cross motion may be considered on its merits when it and the timely motion address essentially the same issues. Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. Plaintiff continued to complain of cervical and lumbar discomfort and worsening of the pre-existing weakness in his right upper extremity. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. at 653). He met with another HSS doctor on October 22, 2004, who wrote that the plan was to have plaintiff return in November to see Frelinghuysen "for booking of his anterior disc fusion surgery." 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. Michael B. On January 10, 2012, [*6]well after the deadline for dispositive motions had passed, HSS "cross-moved" for summary judgment without providing any explanation whatsoever for its delay. Again, in hindsight, he formulates a conclusory opinion that the more aggressive approach to treatment was the proper one; the competing medical factors to be considered in deciding whether to perform the surgery are simply not addressed. 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. Electronic tests revealed that plaintiff's cervical condition was significantly the same as in 2005 which supported Dr. Hecht's post surgical findings. 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. Dr. Michael A. Cross, MD . 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. Contact; Help; Partners; Blog; Press; Product; . FIND A DOCTOR. hilton houston address. Ins. Sinai. Plaintiff underwent a two-stage cervical spine surgery in December 2005. 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). Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. An MRI of his cervical spine taken the same day found "severe central canal and severe neural foraminal stenosis," resulting in "severe myelomalacia of the spinal cord" from C3 to mid-C5 level. Dr. Michael Cross, MD - Lafayette, IN | Orthopaedic Surgery Dr. Michael Cross, MD | Indianapolis, IN | Orthopedic Surgery | Vitals The majority concludes that summary disposition is precluded by the Court of Appeals' decision in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), without reference to the judicial policy espoused in the opinion. Michael B Cross Mid-flexion instability (MFI) in total knee arthroplasty refers to a distinct clinical entity where the knee is stable at full extension and 90 of flexion, but unstable. Michael B. Michael B. Michael B. Cross - OSET | Orthopaedic Summit Get free summaries of new New York Appellate Division, First Department opinions delivered to your inbox! He is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery and graduated from VANDERBILT UNIV SCH. Acknowledgment Hospital for Special Surgery gratefully thanks the Autumn Benefit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for . The same expertise that has earned HSS the #1 ranking for orthopedics in the world by Newsweek and the #1 ranking in the U.S. 13 years in a row according to U.S. News & World Report* is available locally through a unique collaboration with the caring experts at Stamford Health. Footnote 1:Girardi testified that the notation that he and Frelinghuysen had recommended any particular surgery was "incorrect." Here, the modestly late motion submitted by HSS sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion. The evidence will be construed in the light most favorable to the one moved against (see Young v New York City Health & Hosps. 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. dr michael cross leaving hss. 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. While continuing at HJD, plaintiff also sought treatment at Mt. Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. The answer is yes. Times, Locations & Directions for Dr. Michael Cross - WebMD 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. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. PDF Expert Opinion provided by Dr. Michael Cross Health & Living. 212.606.1823 212.734.3833 (fax) www.hss.edu alumni@hss.edu. Thus, the primary objective of Brill to discourage dilatory conduct is not implicated (see Fofana v 41 W. 34th St., LLC, 71 AD3d 445, 448 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]). Find expert care and book online. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. Dr. Cross is one of the most pleasant medical providers that I have ever come in contact with. However, the solution, the Court of Appeals explains, is not for the courts to overlook or bend CPLR 3212(a) to fit the particular circumstances, but for "practitioners [to] move for summary judgment within the prescribed time period or offer a legitimate reason for the delay" (id.). In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. 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. The cross movant may rely on the papers submitted with the main motion to support the relief sought. Furthermore, both the memorandum and Brill identify an adversarial party's lack of adequate time to prepare a response to the motion as the problem to be addressed. In March of 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS with complaints of pain in his lower back and left leg. . Finally, the majority adopts the trial court's conclusion that the expert's opinion is imprecise with respect to the nature of the alleged deterioration in plaintiff's condition and the extent to which each hospital bears responsibility. The clinic notes of June 11, 2004 indicate that his "symptoms have progressed with increased right shoulder atrophy"; a new round of studies was scheduled. 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. Ten months after the surgery at Mt. Sinai, in October 2006, plaintiff returned to HJD's neurology clinic, reporting a lack of improvement in upper extremity strength, and some pain and numbness on the right arm and hand. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]). The court then went on to comment in dicta that if its merits were examined, summary dismissal should be denied as there are substantial questions of HSS appealed from the denial of its "cross motion" and plaintiff cross-appealed from the grant of HJD's motion. [*2]Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and Shoshana T. Bookson, New York, for respondent-appellant. "The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. Thus, there were issues of fact raised "as to the advisability of surgery sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment on the merits.". On October 1, 2004, plaintiff saw defendant Dr. Peter Frelinghuysen, an orthopaedic surgeon at HSS, who noted that he was "very concerned" that there was only a small chance that surgery would improve plaintiff's condition. The Jewish Hospital 4777 E Galbraith Rd Cincinnati, OH 45236. In our view, Brill expresses the Court's overall desire to curb "sloppy" litigation practices, one of them being late summary judgment motions. They work like a well-oiled machine. Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. This is clear by tracing Lapin's antecedents. HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. On October 1, 2004, plaintiff first met with defendants Peter Frelinghuysen, M.D. He received his medical degree from University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years. HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. 35 Mayflower Avenue Unit B Stamford, CT 06906 Phone +1 (212) 987-OSET (6738) CONTACT US . Auth. Cross, MD. Footnote 2: Supreme Court's extension of the time to file dispositive motions had given the parties a total of 82 days after the filing of the note of issue on August 24, 2011. "Before this matter may proceed to trial, it will be necessary to decide, as a matter of law, whether a doctor has a duty to perform a surgical procedure requested by a patient despite, in the professional opinion of the doctor, the high risk and absence of benefit that such surgery entails. 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. Cross is a radiation oncologist. Maysville Radiology Group 991 Medical Park Dr Maysville, KY 41056. Drugs & Supplements. They work like a well-oiled machine. In Frelinghuysen's words, he and Girardi decided that surgery "would not help." Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Remote Second Opinion At his next visit on November 12, 2004, a different doctor indicated in the clinic notes that Frelinghuysen and Girardi had recommended "what sounds like a two-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion," and that plaintiff would follow up in one week "to discuss surgery" [*3]with Frelinghuysen [FN1]. Find Providers by Condition. Dr. Michael B. Feinman, J. 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]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER FEINMAN, J. Plaintiff returned to HSS in June 2004 complaining of increasing right shoulder dysfunction and neck pain, and decreasing balance. Dr. Cross joined HSS as a clinician-scientist and currently has over 55 publications and has received numerous research awards at local, regional, and national levels, including the 2013 Frank Stinchfield Award from the Hip Society and the 2013 OREF/ORS Travel Award in Translational Research from the Orthopaedic Research Society. Brill reiterates Kihl's statement that, " [i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity'" (2 NY3d at 652-653, quoting Kihl at 123). Dr. Cross completed his residency at HSS, 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. 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. 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 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. Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award HSS also argued that the claim of lack of informed consent should be dismissed, given that no procedure requiring consent had been performed. Neither the motion court nor the majority identifies any prejudice that was incurred by any party due to HSS's motion that might warrant requiring HSS to forfeit summary determination. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the "recurring scenario" of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect "ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice" (2 NY3d at 650). Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. As most recently articulated in Gibbs: Likewise, there is no indication that plaintiff was prepared to undergo the procedure prior to October 2004, when he first consulted with Dr. Freylinghuysen. If the issue had been compression, surgery would have been performed to prevent further progression, but due to the degeneration of the spinal cord, decompressive laminectomies would have done little or nothing to address plaintiff's upper extremity issues. HSS Names Michael P. Ast, MD, Vice-Chair and Chief Medical Innovation He accepts multiple insurance plans, including Medicare. The court noted that Dr. Girardi at HSS "explained clearly that he believed that the cord was so damaged that the surgery would not have improved anything" and Dr. Hecht, who performed the surgery, acknowledged that plaintiff did not have any objective improvement.
Haunted Hiking Trails In Ct, 2nd Cavalry Regiment Leaving Germany, Articles D