M.L. v Panza

Annotate this Case
[*1] M.L. v Panza 2019 NY Slip Op 50706(U) Decided on April 29, 2019 Supreme Court, Suffolk County St. George, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 29, 2019
Supreme Court, Suffolk County

M.L., an Infant by his mother and natural guardian, JEANNETTE HATCHER, and JEANNETTE HATCHER, individually, Plaintiffs,

against

Nicholas Panza, RPA-C, STEVEN A. SIMONSEN, M.D., F.A.A.O.S., JAMES L. MARZEC, M.D., F.A.A.O.S., F.A.C.S. and SOUTH SHORE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants.



612260/16



For the plaintiffs:

Rizzuto Law Firm

50 Charles Lindbergh Boulevard

Uniondale, New York 11553

For defendants Panza, Simonsen and South Shore Orthopaedic Assoc.:

Perry Van Etten Rozanski & Kutner, LLP

225 Broadhollow Road Suite 430

Melville, New York 11747

For defendant Marze" target="_blank">Shajan v. South Nassau Communities Hospital, (99 AD3d 786 [2d Dept 2012]) and Ruggiero v. Miles, (125 AD3d 1216 [3d Dept 2015]). While this Court agrees with the general proposition for which these cases stand, the facts in those cases are also distinguishable from the case at bar and they do not serve to defeat Dr. Marzec's motion. In Shajan, the physician not only was assigned to supervise the attending physician assistant, but she countersigned the patient's chart.

In Ruggiero, the physician was the sole shareholder in the practice and he had entered into a written practice agreement with the physician assistant whereby any disputes arising regarding matters of diagnosis or treatment between them would be resolved in accordance with the physician's opinion. That agreement amply demonstrated to the Ruggiero court that the physician assistant was under the physician's direct supervision and control. There is no such evidence in this matter.

Since the plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact, defendant James L. Marzec, M.D.'s summary judgment motion is granted, and the complaint as alleged against Dr. Marzec is dismissed in its entirety.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.



Dated:April 29, 2019

Riverhead, NY

CARMEN VICTORIA ST. GEORGE, J.S.C. Footnotes

Footnote 1:10 NYCRR § 94.2 provides that the "supervision shall be continuous but shall not necessarily require the physical presence of the supervising physician at the time and place where the services are performed."