Sullivan v Bell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Sullivan v Bell 2012 NY Slip Op 30236(U) January 18, 2012 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 3977/10 Judge: Jeffrey S. Brown Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. ------------------------------------------------------------ --- ------------ --- -------------------- ------ --------------------------- --------------------- -------------------- ------------------ ------ ---- --------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [* 1] .. SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU PRE S E NT: HON. JEFFREY S. BROWN JUSTICE TRIAL/IAS PART 17 MARGARET SULLIVAN, AS E)(ECUTRI)( OF THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY F. SULLIVAN, AND MARGARET SULLIVAN, INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff, INDE)( # 3977/10 Motion Seq. 1, 2 Motion Date 9. 27/10. 26. Submit Date 11. 21.11 -againstPAUL A. BELL, M. D., WINTHROP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, DR. THOMAS R. O' DONNELL, M. and BROOKHAVEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendants. The following papers were read on this motion: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affdavits (Affirmations), Exhibits Annexed......................... Answering Affidavit............................................................................................. Reply Affidavit...................................................................................................... Motion by the defendant Winthrop University Hospital for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting it summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross- GRANTED. claims against it is [* 2] Motion by the defendant Brookhaven Memorial Hospital for an order pursuant to cPLR 3212 granting it summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any and all cross- claims against it is DENIED. The plaintiffs in this action seeks to recover damages for medical malpractice, wrongful death and lack of informed consent. The defendant hospitals where the decedent Timothy Sullvan was treated seek summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Succinctly stated , the facts pertinent to the determination ofthese motions are as follows: As the result of a PET scan , the decedent's private attending doctor , the defendant Dr. Bell recommended an excisional biopsy of the decedent Timothy Sullivan s left tonsil region. Dr. Bell performed a unilateral tonsilectomy at Winthrop University Hospital on March 3 , 2008. The decedent was discharged from Winthrop at approximately 11 :00 AM. At home, at approximately 11 :45 AM , the decedent experienced bleeding at the operative site. He was transported via ambulance to the defendant Brookhaven Memorial Hospital. Dr. DiGioa, a doctor in the hospital' s emergency room , discussed decedent' s condition with Dr. Bell who advised that an otolaryngology (ENT) consult be done. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital called upon its on-call ENT , the defendant Dr. O' Donnell , to evaluate the decedent. Dr. O' Donnell cared for the decedent and discharged him at approximately 4:30 PM despite his wife , the plaintiff Margaret Sullivan , protestations. At approximately 11 :30 PM , the decedent' s bleeding recurred , an ambulance was again summoned , and he was brought back to Brookhaven Memorial Hospital. The decedent went into respiratory distress and was placed on a ventilator and transferred to the Intensive Care Unit. He died at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital on March 5 2008. [* 3] On a motion for summary judgment pursuant to cPLR 3212 , the proponent must make a showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law , tendering sufficient evidence prima facie fSheppard- Mobley to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." , 74 (2d Dept 2004), affd as mod. , 4 NY3d 627 (2005), citing NY2d 320 Alvarez King, 10 AD3d Prospect Hosp. , 68 Winegrad New York Univ. Med. Ctr. 64 NY2d 851 853 (1985)). prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion , regardless of the 324 (1986); Failure to make such suffciency of the opposing papers. (Sheppard-Mobley Prospect Hosp. supra; King, supra , at p. 74; Alvarez New York Un iv, Med. Ctr. supra). Once the movant' s burden Winegrad is met , the burden shifts to the opposing party to establish the existence of a material issue of fact Prospect Hosp. supra , at p. 324). The evidence presented by the opponents of (Alvarez summar judgment must be accepted as true and they must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference (see Demishick Community Housing Management Corp. 34 AD3d 518 Secofv Greens Condominium 158 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1990)). 521 (2d Dept 2006), citing (H)ospitals are ' shielded from liability when its employees follow the orders of (a private attending physician) unless the latter s orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal" practice that ordinar prudence requires inquiry into their correctness. 681 (2 253 AD2d 616 255 Filppone Dept 2010), quoting 265 n. 3 (1968); Sf. Vincent s Hosp. and Medical Center of New York 618 (Ist Dept 1998); and citing Muniz Katz 78 AD 3d (Sela Toth Community Hosp. at Glen Cove 22 NY2d Katlowitz 49 AD3d 511 513 (2 Dept 2008); Soto Andaz AD3d 470 471- 472 (2 Dept 2004)). Winthrop University Hospital' s motion is GRANTED. It has established that while at Winthrop, the decedent was under the care of his private attending doctor , the defendant Dr. Bell; ," [* 4] that the hospital staff properly followed Dr. Bell' s instructions , and in so doing conformed with medical protocol; and that nothing that Dr. Bell did or failed to do was medically contraindicated. The burden accordingly shifts to the plaintiffs to establish the existence of a material issue of fact. The plaintiffs have not opposed Winthrop University Hospital' s motion. The complaint and any and all cross- claims against Winthrop University Hospital are dismissed. In general (a) hospital may not be held (liable) for the acts of a doctor who was not an employee of the hospital , but one of a group of independent contractors. Southampton Hosp. 39 AD3d 697 698 (2 St. Clare s Hosp. , 67 Hil Dept 2007), quoting (Dragotta NY2d 72 , 79 (1986)). However vicarious liability for the medical malpractice of an independent, private attending physician may be imposed under a theory of apparent or ostensible supra; Hannon Southampton Hosp. (Dragotta agency by estoppel." Siegel- Cooper Dept 2006)). " (W)here Co. supra , quoting 167 N. Y. 244 (1901); King Hil St. Clare s Hosp. Mitchell 31 AD3d 958 , 959 a hospital or clinic holds out an independent contractor to be its agent or employee , it may be stopped from asserting such independent contractor status if the patient has relied on that representation. Hil Sup. App. Term 2011), citing Franklin Dental Health 34 Misc 3d 1 (N. (Nilsen St. Clare s Hosp, supra). This is because " (p)atients seeking medical help and the plaintiffs seeking redress for alleged malpractice should not be bound by secret limitations contained in private contracts. 691 (2nd Dept 1988), citing Hannon Siegel- Cooper Mduba Co. supra; (Santiago Archer 136 AD2d 690 Benedictine Hosp. 52 AD2d 450 453 (3rd Dept1976); Lanza Parkeast Hosp. 102 AD2d 741 (Ist Dept 1984)). In order to create such apparent agency, there must be words or conduct of the principal , communicated to a third part, which give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses the authority to act on [* 5] behalf of the principal. The third part must reasonably rely on the appearance of authority, based on some misleading words or conduct by . the principal , not the agent. Moreover , the third part must accept the services of the agent in reliance upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the principal , and not in reliance on the agent's skill." State 64 NY2d Hallock Southampton Hosp. supra , quoting Dragotta King Ford Unity Hosp. 32 NY2d 464 473 (1973); 224 231 (1984); Cayuga Med. Center at Ithaca , 28 Searle Mitchell supra , at p. 959; AD3d 834 , 836 (3 Dept 2006). There are two elements to such a claim of apparent or ostensible agency. Southampton Hosp. (Dragotta supra , at p. 699). " To establish the ' holding out' element , the misleading Southampton Hosp. (Dragotta words or conduct must be attributable to the principal." supra at p. 699). " To establish the ' reliance ' element , the third pary must accept the agent' s services and submit to the agent's care in reliance on the belief that the agent was an employee of the (Dragotta principal." Southampton Hosp. supra, at p. 699). " In the context of a medical malpractice action , the patient must have reasonably believed that the physicians treating him or her were provided by the hospital or acted on the hospital' s behalf." Hosp. supra , quoting Dolan Jaeger 285 AD2d 844 Island Hosp. 226 AD2d 427 , 428 (2 846 (3 Southampton (Dragotta Dept. 2001); Gunther Staten Dept. 1996)). In the context Qf evaluating whether a doctor is the apparent agent of a hospital , a court should consider all attendant circumstances. . . to determine whether the patient could properly have believed that the physician was provided by the hospital (quotations omitted). Contilo 55 AD3d 588 (2nd 2005), quoting Augeri Massoff Dept 2008), quoting Contu (Sampson Albert 18 AD3d 692 , 693 (2 Dept 134 AD2d 308 , 309 (2 Dept 1987)). [* 6] In support of its motion , Brookhaven University Hospital has submitted the affirmation of John Roche. He is Board Certified in Emergency Medicine. Having reviewed the pertinent medical and legal records , Dr. Roche opines to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that there were no departures from accepted standards of care by Brookhaven Memorial Hospital. He notes that the decedent had lab work done which showed normal coagulation , a hemoglobin of 14. hematocrit of 41.6 and platelets of 143; that upon examination , Dr. O' Donnell found no active bleeding and the decedent appeared to be stable; and , that Dr. O' Donnell communicated with Dr. Bell before the decedent was discharged at Dr. O' Donnell' s recommendation. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital maintains that Dr. DiGioia had no reason to override Dr. O' Donnell' s opinion made in consulting with Dr. Bell that the decedent be discharged. Brookhaven University Hospital has not addressed Dr. O' Donnell' s conduct: Instead , it maintains that it canot be held liable for his actions. The defendant Brookhaven Memorial Hospital has not established its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. Even though Dr. O' Donnell was not an employee of the hospital , there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Brookhaven Memorial Hospital is vicariously liable for any departures by him under the theory of ostensible agency. At the suggestion of the decedent's private doctor , the defendant Dr. Bell , the decedent went to Brookhaven Memorial Hospital' s emergency room seeking emergent medical care. There , the decedent was treated by the defendant Dr. O' Donnell. That " " otolarygologist was assigned to the decedent' s case at the behest of Dr. Bell does not require a different result. There is no evidence that the plaintiffs or Dr. Bell played any role in choosing Dr. O' Donnell to treat the [* 7] decedent: Dr. Bell only requested that " assigned Dr. O' Donnell (compare " otolaryngologist be assigned, and the hospital Schultz Shreedhar 66 AD3d 666 (2 Dept 2009)). The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this Court. All applications not specifically addressed herein are denied. Dated: Mineola, New York January 18 2012 Y S. BROWN, JSc Attorney for Plaintiff Fogarty & Duffy, PC 185 Wilis Avenue , Ste. 2 Mineola, NY 11501- 2674 516- 747- 7500 Attorney for Defendant Winthrop Montfort Healy, McGuire & Salley 840 Franklin Avenue PO Box 7677 Garden City, NY 11530- 7677 747- 4082 Attorney for Defendant Bell and O'Donnell Kelly Rode & Kelly, LLP 330 Old Country Road Mineola , NY 11501 739- 0400 Attorney for Defendant Brookhaven Anthony P. Vardaro , PC 732 Smithtown Bypass , Ste. 203 11787 Smithtown 631- 361- 9494 , NY ENTEREO JAN 23 2012 NASSAU COUNT\I COUITY CLERK' OFFICf

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.