Susan Midler v. Richard Crane, M.D.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 146 SSM 18 Susan Midler, Respondent, v. Richard Crane, M.D., Appellant. Submitted Steven J. Ahmuty, Jr., for appellant. Submitted by Douglas A. Cooper, for respondent. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed with costs, and a new trial ordered. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that, on the facts of this case, there was no inconsistency between the findings that defendant was not negligent in failing to diagnose the plaintiff's condition and that he was negligent in failing to - 1 - - 2 monitor her. SSM No. 18 However, the jury's verdict was inconsistent in finding that defendant's failure to monitor the patient was a substantial factor in causing her injury, while the negligence of a non-party, Dr. Curtis, in failing to transmit his urinalysis results to defendant was not. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Decided May 11, 2010 - 2 -
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.
