Simmons v Fok

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Simmons v Fok 2010 NY Slip Op 34008(U) May 12, 2010 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 29374/04 Judge: Gerard H. Rosenberg Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] At •n IA$ Tenn, Parl MMTRP of tbc Suprc1n:.; (~our1 of rhe St.ure of New )'ork, held in 11nd for the c·ounty of Kings. at Ilk (:ounhouse, til (.'ivic (~ente r. f!rooklyn, New York un !ht: 1211'1 day of~loy, 201 0. I I 1> R ESEN T: COPY HON. Ci ii Rf\ RD 11. ROSENOf;RG Justice. . . - - . - - . - - - . - - . - - - .. . - • - . • - - • - . • • . -X , D1•ia11 Sintn1ons, On Jn fun( under the age of DECISION & ORDER fourtcc;l {14) years, by his Mother and 1'1 1 uwr-.1.I Gllardinn, Elsa Pc1-a!ta, lndcx No. 2Q3i4/0.1 M<>lion Seq. Nos. 005. 006, 007 • ur,ainst; j Eric Chi-CJicung F<>k. M.n ., New (,ifc. Oh/Gyn Group, L.L.P. itnd Luthi:ran Medical C..:ntcr, JJefe1Klan:fs). - - . - .. .. - - • .. - . - - - . ... - .. - . - - - . .. - . .. ·X Notice of f\101io1 O rder t<1 ShO"'' (~.au!id :.i' Pctit1on/(:ross fi.iotion and 1\ffidav1ts (Affim):ltions) Annexed________ _ _ _ 1- 2, l;..S. J . § - - -· - ·- Opp'>sing .A l1id:;vi1s (Atfum \ltioos)_ Re-ply Affi,.i~vits (Afl'i-rmations) _ _ __ _ _ __ __ --- ------ ----·· -- · - - -·-·- - - - - - l ip-on the foregoing papers, and upon oral argument, defe-ndant Lutheran Medical Center 111ovc:; J)ursu.ant to (:PLR 3042( b) for a11 order striking plaintiff's purported Supp1crnent<il 13iil of'J>articulars o n the grounds thul jt is 1ruJy an A!ncnded Bill of PuJ1iculiU's served withotic tcavc of rhc cou1 whic.:h l'urs f(1rth ne\1/ th'-'<> offiabilily v;hilc Ihis m11Uer rics is on the tri:if calendar {M0iio~1 "e<rut:ncc No. 005). Plain(iff croS$-rnovcs ( f ) pursuant to [* 2] WI as. WI a k tj(,...,.,.,, J:fudJ @W~J.JJ Ett ... J ....... J . J!i4SSJI. a>:ss;:: ei;tP,tt' . .., x •k\ll.'$ , ._.., """' 143 ~-. ! ~ ( 'Pl .R J t}2$(b) for an 01-<lef granling IC'::!ve R>serve a s upplcmcotal andlor amended bill or I par1iculars in the fo t!l) i.\ttae:hi:d ro the ctoS!\•n1otion; ant.I (2) pursuant to CPL.R 3 tQ&for an or<i.cr d;rcclu1 Ll1c <:lc.rk of the Court to i.S$U :1n (lJ)CO co1 g C nmissiot1 ;iddfCSSe<.I to th~ Cuurl o ( Con11Tton Plc;.is of the.; St~1c. of Peousylvania, c.:ounty <1f Montgomery, 10 order the deposition of Lisa Gatl-K<x:l1anik. M.IJ. ( ti.101ior, Sequence No. 006). Ocfcndaut Eric l'·ok. J 1 M.D. (Or. rok) 111ovcs for an ordcr1nnrking the case offthe: ifia} ctileudaror Sl<iying ltial, due I l<> ph1 intifrs fl!i!urc 10 provide ~ ipdalcd authorizations and fai lu11C to sul>mit to a phys1cnl 1 cxamint,ttion by Dr. Oa11abnn-Gil (.V101 Sequence No. 007). ion Backgrot111d ·rhi5: is a 1 nc<li..:.a1 malpr.1cticc ilCtion d~1J in¥ \vith care and lreat1 nent readeJ'ed by l.h~ rlcf<:ndant:; lo pJ~i1l li ff Elsa Perulta during ht."T prcg.no.nc)' in 2000 and during J1er l\drnii;.sion to Lutheran ?\1cdical Center on Scptcn1 27. 2000 for labor and delivery after experiencing 0Cr lea ktigc: cf 1 tmnio1ic fl uid. Plaintiff \Vt:; treated al th!! ll<>spib1l by dctCndsnt Or. Fok, ::t!ong wilh u number of 1~-ut hcr:in Medical Center physicia ns. Plaintiff alleges,. ir.tcr alia, lhat the d efendants failed to pcffonl\ a ccso.rcau secrion at or about 2:00 p.1 en Scpfcn)bcr 28. 2000 n. al in the fc,ce of fe1 h~111 striJ:>S \vhich indi<:<1tcd fetal stress, instc;<td pcrsisline in the plan fOr ;:; ''~1g: nal delivery v"hich took place by S:OS p.nt P!(!inlitTallcgc:s 1h~H as a rc$ul1 of this delay I the infilnf plaintiff su JTc:red i~j urics including, inter uliil, respirator)' di.,,[1ress syndrome; 1 1u::1.:bol1 and respirnlory ncidosis; bro.dyc.ir<l1a; pcrruaneot stl:!tic enceph lopalhy; sc.izure c d;oordcr; l>ch•vioml d<tlcns; w~;ic moll<r lcukodystrophy; dconyel;n•<lng bra;n ;njury; !->CVCr:.': COfnitiv:: And intCll'-'t"lUCJ! impairmen'; ·2- d c veloptn~nlai tlt:Jay; <!Tl<l r tlcntiOn defiCil. [* 3] I h ypcrac11v1ty d. sordcr. . . ; 1 Thi' Origl11al Bill of Partic11/aTJ ·rhc pl:-1intiff's original verified bill of p.articulars as co Ltitht.:ran Medical : I tl:itcd Occcnlbcr ·; o. 2004. \Vh.crcio plaintiO' nllegc:.-cl in pt1 . rt <~c11(cf 1s th~t Ltllht!ran dcpa11cd fsoin ia:c;c.:ptcd standards ofn1cdical practice by fhi1in.g to adcquateJy train, supervise aotl ulanagc i(S c.rnplOyt!es, including the n:u:dic-aJ und nur.;ing staff; in fa iling attcnd1:.d by a coo; petent obstetrician, malernat/fctal pediatric neurologist, and 01hcr ntcd ic~I n100 icin~ lo have the plai lltiff specialist, oconat;.tlogist. spcciulisis; in fajling 10 properly treiu infanl plalntifrs perinatal and prenatal <.listress: in failing to heed objective signs. including tachyc~-1r<lia and variable doccleratiol\S offct~ l heart n101liroring: in failing to tintety perfom1 a (;Csan:.an secliun tlue lo ft: lat <.listri:ss; in ti~i l ing to llm~ly and propL·- l)' treat nuchal cord; ttlld r in fai ling lo timely and properly trc.ai infant plairlli f:rs perinatal rc.c;pi ru1orydis1n.-ss (Vi:rilit:<l Bilj of Partieul:'!rs, Response 2;. Plaintiff a.Uegcd that the alleged ntalprocriee be. an in the g prt:natal pc'!'iorl on or :.bout Scptcnibi:r 25, 2000, and cor:linuing d uri11g the Jo:boro11 orabouc Scptcn1bcr 27· 28~ 2000, and dul'iH,g 1hc bi11h a;)d i 1umt:"di~tc post-nat.al period of intMt plalnriffuuril bis dischar'gc fron1 f:hc hospitaJ on September 30. 2000r Plai11tiff's Sup11le1nentul Rill t1/ Partieulars ihc p hlilltiff s St1 ppJc111e11tJ.I verified bill of particulars. (!S l< Lutheran ?v1cdical C ~nl er ) is <lated i'vfarch 26, 2009, St)n ?c S J11onlhs a11c1 the fi ling of the ll(\tC of issue. In i1 pluintiff expands on <!llcgations rnndc in th~ orig inul bill as (o the prenatal pe.riod a11d the pcrinat~l p<.riod involving labor and delivery. In i.ldditio n, pl<1inliff ::1<ld:> ::tllc::~~tli(1!lS of pcdi:irric . ). I J [* 4] -':!. lW.i i41£WltiKEJ. !WQl. SCC..,J , $!%SPll!'&Ufti1i. ))Rl,VJl, ::W ...$Ci ! llJIQtt.. tC ,:x;tM&i/Uil!tt&t I I dcpa11Ures 1 in1ely ........., tbr rhc firtit time, lnctuding the failure to ootify the: pt."Uiotric dcpan:ment in :\ m~tnocr (0 hi! a11~e..:;.s u•eJlt '\, rrcscnt :u dchvery, (tnd the Jbilurc 10 pcrror1n a n1u1titudc i>ftc~rs, procedut'C$ and rrt:atn1c;n1 upon the 1 te\vbom 1nf3ru, \vhich plnir1 alleges tifT should have been perf<>nncd by 1bc pcdi~tric dcpaf1mcnt. 11 iii ll1cli-I) pOil·birth allegations regarding tru: pcdia1nc (lepott1uen1 '''hi th is the fuc..1.b of the nlOt:on by defendant Lutheran Medical Cco1e<. Discu.s.siq1, Pvrlion.i; ~)f 1hcsc n~o1ions have been it:ndcred f'noot by dcvclop1ncn's in this case. for : t:X~1nple, this mat1c1· \Yt'\S stricken fmn' the trial calendar af\1.:r th'-'llt 1no(ioos \Vere fil~d so that addilion.al dis.r.o...eryc;oult.! t:.ikc place. thereby renderins 1ha1 Portlon of Dr. Fok's motion whi~h u:~s !O s1tike 1hc Cbk from the trial ca.!c:nd:3r moot. In M:ldition, pi.e.inriff hwi cQm.Mcnceda separate :ic1ton IL'3ltl5l Li~ Gall-Koch::u1ik:. M.O. As .a cunscqucnoc, Dr. GallKocho.~ik will prcsumobly be >ubjcct to deposi1ion as a par1y, thereby R."lldcring moot 1h3r I purtio11 of plaintiff s croiJS.•ntotioo ..vhich sough1 ;:in open comn,ission tu condoct her I <ICposition in Pcnn:<>yl...:iniu. l 'fhc balance of the mulioas on<l c'oss-:notlon <ire decided <ts fo Jlo,v!.. a bdl o(pon1cula~ 15 ordinarily (1ecdy g i\-CO in the absence orprqud1cc or surpri~-c m11ltitlg di reedy from lhc tklay(A111frr·l.ong • Yefizon Oxp.,:J t AD3d 3S3, 3>1·355 [2006] [imcmol cita t ion~ cm11tcJJi .vee 11/sa iWalon<!y Carpe11lry, /1u.:. v Budnik) 37 A03d 558, 558 [2007! [''(l}C";1vc; 10 ~mend Of supplcme111 plt·udiog.s shouJd be freely cruntcll u11Jcss the arnendment I I -- [* 5] ICO&i i.ll IP P&J. sqcw;~ s &•-·· tC::W».'Jtlt·SlWl . ...;eax;(.t;;ll!al . eu. 1Xatt«a.o ~:a,..... .,.1Z&: + e-<~ I sought is palpnb)y improper or insufficient as a nlatter of la\v, ISUf}~rist} din..--cdy result from lh~ delay Of 1.1nless prejudice and in socking the amcndnlcnt"t !inten1al citations I r QmittcdJ; Sl~C(t/so. l~ucit!fJ v AJaucuso. 49 AD3d 220 f20<)8]). (:onsidcring 1.he c?e!ay's ex.ten! I . and rcason~~)len cs.s of the excuse for the delay also :lt'IC:cl the 1 o1ion \~•hich "is C1)rnmit1cd 'n j 10 !he co-un·s discretion" (Edc:111vnld Co111rnc1;ng CrJ.. Inc. v <..:ii)' off.'eiv ~Or..\:, (,0 NY2d 957. 959 ( t98J)). rlowcvcr, "''here the application roi IL':a\'C to ~nnen.d ls lllii(lc long uftcr rhr; ectipn has been ecnificd for trial, judicial discretion in a.Jlowine such t11ncndn1c nrs should be di!>crcte-, circumspect, prude11t ai1d ¢3\Jtiou'i>, attd whc'l made on the eve. oi trinl judicial I I discrct!on should be ex.e rciscd sparingly (.A,,'iorris v Queens long Island f.ff!d. c;rOUJ), 49 I AD3d &27 {2008]i. I This mancr is not currently o n the lrial <:~lendru-, nno additional c!iscoveryisbeing and ' niay continue to be conducted. Jn ~d<lition, lht-. ~xiSling bill o f particulars is \vortlcd in i'Uch ' a \V3)' as to put the \kfcndants on notic-c: duu injury fronl negligenlJy tncnaged labor and dcfive.1y, as \\·ell as perinatal car e, 1 ls alleged, and defendant. like the op))Osing party in the I I Molo11ey Carpenlrycose, "cannot claim prejudice orsurprise since the proposed amendments i arise out of the snmc fuc1s as 1 hosc undc!Jying the t1c1ion broughc by the plaintiff' (37 A03tl 55iS, 558-559 l tnh::mal ci1a.ti()n$ on1itlc<lJ; sec olso llcvcroge .fvfa rkcJi1ig US'A. /11c. v South Hcach HevcragP.(:(,., /11c., 20 AD3d 439. 440 [2005} [·'sir.cc the proposcd~1ncodn1cnt n1~.rcly scc.k~ to add a nc~· 1hcory of recover;•. \Vithoul.aJleging JlC\t; or ditrcrcnt traosactioos. the Plninli ff con1ends, and L1.1thernn Medical ('ellter does 1101 coutc::sl. lhal tite pcrio ~1t1J period is defined ::;s that \"·hi~h COV¢TS c:i.re and trc::1uneo1 up to the infan1's 281l't day<'lf 1 if¢ (;-\ffirn1atinn of tv1icMcl J, Noonan, Esq. in Supporl ofCt~ss- Mot ion and in Opposition h> Mt»ion, 1 12). .5. [*!l<11'.'!:11&&.... it.,u:;e ..;JJGii•t;;:()il ll;;&J!6%1il&Giktf&KSQJ , tJ,:C,JA mtms m 6] J t . WiiOUJ! lll!Hdit!.i!A JJ>.U&b f< h:fend:ir.ts \voutd 11ot be Slll'Priscd or prcju<i!ccd by lhc am¢nd1 llcnt''l; llrflrtiuglon v Trotta I f rfut<) IVr f.•ckers, 25? AD2d 64 7, 647 [ 199<)j l"(1 opposine defendant} cannot clai,-n . he I 1 jJrcjutlicc ur surprise s ince the cross cl:iim ~! rises out of 1hc s.arn-c facts i:is those und(..'Tlying the action brought by tl 1 ~ Jllaintit1i>"J: Ni:>,\'Cnl;tuun 1' , ..(!raz::o!i. 171 :\02.d 654~ 655 r l9~1 1 [''die I sellers can hat<lly claim prej11diC¢ ot sutprise since the buyer's uC\Y cau~ of ;'lCtioo ~rises O\ll ; of the san1c undcr))'ing facts'' )) . ..\ccotdingly, un<ler the circi11·nstatlc.es pt¢SC1tted.plaintiff is granted lci!vc to serve-::in I Atncndcd Verified Bill of Paniculars in lhc form annexed to the cros.s-1no1iu11, a11J tht: j Amended Ve:ifi<,-.d BilJ of Panicul~:s is dcemtti s-=rved. The motion by Lutheran f\.1cdica1 Cenler t<J strike sumc is denied. 'fhc motion l)y Dr. f.'ok is granccd co chc extenl that pl~in l i(f is to provide tho se l a\1thorizatioos cnu1nefatcd in 1he 111otio11 \vhic.h h~vc no• yet bec1 provided, if <iny, "'ithin twc:nly (20) days of ¢ntry of 1 otder. Also, plaintiff is to submit to the his phy~ic~I t:;(umin<ition :.ipccifi etl in the motion by Dr. Fok. if he ha:; not ycl done so 1 \\'ith\n 60 <lays of entry of this order. :tuJtJ. S. C. HON. GERARD r I a l!PSENBEl!I

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.