Emery v Parker

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Emery v Parker 2012 NY Slip Op 30716(U) March 20, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 116082/2010 Judge: Paul Wooten 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] SCANNED ON 312312012 __ [* 2] nllrse fro17 July 2003 to Jclrie 2007, an a per diein basts, She IS also a Irconsed attorney. Arnong her dutitss was witnessing arid verifying patients' signatures on sclrgical oonsenf farms. Patients wore asked ta sign a consent form I '/ at tho und of a discussior~ wtth thetr physlcldns about tho risks af prospective surgical prQcedures An obsorvdr, such as plalntlff, was, expected to be present to witness the signature and sign ths form as weli. Mer., at tho, pre- ! surgery unit, plaintiff and other's would ver'ify the patiant infotmation on th ' 8 the Patlent, and themselves q n an electrbnic; vgrificaiion C6llseflt form, I [* 3] Dcforrdants, who are M S K ~ C ' S inside and outside counsel, tack an appeal of ALJ I .,ai o's J u ne 10,2008 qi et e r,m1 nat i Q q t eg I t t~ Un Q m p I o y rrienm'/,LIS 8. t. u rance Ap ppa I B Roat-d) on June 25, 2008 (Motion, exhibit 29). When the Appeal Boqrd affirmed . , determination, defendants served a nbtiee of appdal to ths Appollate Divisibn, Thlrd bepartrnant 8 c)n March 27, 2009 (Motion, exhibits 30-31). Tha,Appellqts Division, in turfi, affirmed tha , , . '_ , I [* 4] [* 5] . .1 , , I , . 8 ' , Appeal Board as widerice for the December 21, 2007 hearing, and, subsequently, the other I defendants engaged by him subrnitted:lt,f4r the January 3$1#, ,2O.Q@!?-hearing; the Appeal Qdard pi-oceeding arid the Appellate Division proceeding. Plaintiff chargos that defendarlts claircled that tho Revised Form "was in effeqt on tho ,plsintiff's last day df 'work , . . with knowiedgi that said revisod cpnsefit form dated Jtine 6 , 2007 was not in use on June 11, 7 2 and 13, 20C7" 8 , (ComPlaiht 77 36, 39)) Fur-the?, 1 ,they&$ed'li, .. , 1 I , ,' continued ,vsethis,,I6falseevidenceU, their in ~, '1'. ?L$eals to the Appeal Board and th6 App~lla)B'.Divisi~t,,,kvb ,iff,, ecknbiw(Bd@ng its , ' i , , ' , ' I ' Qperative and other ' / I -1 [* 6] I I (er-nphasis if) original) Bi owne s rricssago explained to the staff that [ylou are only copfir rning pationt signature riot attesting to tho contaqf ofithe. tnforrqOd c~n~ent~drscw59ion I I ,* Plaintiff responded to Rrowne s e-mail on June 10, 2007, distinguishing botween a by witness involv[rnyj direct contemporaneous vigualisation participation, and verification [a]$ after-ihe-fact cunfirmatiw (Motion, exhibit 6 ) She wrote that a wrinoss riot prosent at the airs office, doos not include the word? fact that a capy of a blank Rs tltne [* 7] deterriiiiiation by ALJ Diego, ospec~ally when six filled-out copieS 07 the Original Form wore pi oduced, does not necessarily uxousp defendants of misconduct 4 4 The June IO,2008 dctsrr-nination, reversing the prevrocis denid of unemployrnorit benefits to plaintiff, took significant note 4f the Hwised Form "The Claimant applied for unernploynienl ir~SLiraiiCe benefits I 1 not suggest that t h Revis ~ [* 8] staternerlt of tho dispute and the status of the forms at issue I "Asreflected in the record, the Claimant objected tu,Sigrjing thu Coilsent forms because she cjisggreed with tha wordlng of the form [Tlhe Claimant [did] tiot give the Hospital any roasonabla opporturiity to address her concern by abandoning hor job just a week after stit? gav? the l-lospita( an ulftmafuiv tp revise t h e form . . Indeed, thg Hospital was wbrking on revising the form as of June 7, 2C07 and impleme,nted a new fQiin M e r that sU ii et-" ( 7 0t 1 i 3 ~ hi $it 29) i3 4 , BX 1 The March 2 7 , 2009 d t i c o of apg@'al ths AFipollate bivisrbn to repres-entations: 1 makes , [* 9] lacked good faith whun subniitting the Rovised Form to the various tribynalsi Moreover, the Court finds that npthing in platiitiff's conduct or that of her coun$el wwr-ant sarictioris pursuant to Part 130 of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial COLlrtS CONCLUSION 1

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.