Klass v Haltrecht

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Klass v Haltrecht 2020 NY Slip Op 34065(U) December 9, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155698/14 Judge: Joan A. Madden Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*[FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 10:56 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 330 INDEX NO. 155698/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK, IAS PART 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X Index No.: 155698/ I 4 RICHARD KLASS, as Executor of the Estate of BERNARD WOLBERG and EVA KLASS-WOLBERG, Plaintiff, -against- MARK HALTRECHT, D.O., ARSENIO MEDICAL, P.C., THE MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL, EDWARD KIM, M.D., FRANCIS S. NOWAKOWSKI, M.D., and DANIEL M. LABOW, M.D., Defendants, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- )( JOAN A MADDEN, J.: Defendants Mark Haltrecht, D.0 and Arsenio Medical, P.C. move for reargument and renewal of the court's decision and order dated July 20, 2020 and entered on July 21, 2020 ("original decision"), which denied defendants' summary judgment motion. Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is denied for the reasons below. In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff asserts that defendants departed from the standard of care in treating plaintiff's decedent Bernard Wolberg ("Mr. Wolberg" or "decedent") by failing to adequately screen him for liver cancer and to recognize the risk ofliver cancer based on Mr. Wolberg's long standing Hepatitis C. The Haltrecht defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing based on the opinions in the affirmation of their expert, Elias 0. Sakalis, M.D., that they did not deviate from the standard of care in connection with their treatment of Mr. Wolberg from February 2011 through October 2013, and that none of the actions taken by them were a proximate cause of the alleged injuries and Mr. Wolberg's death. The Haltrecht defendants also argued that as Dr. Haltrccht was the decedent's primary care physician, he owed no duty lo Mr. Wolberg to treat his Hepatitis 2 of 5 [*[FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 10:56 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 330 INDEX NO. 155698/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 C. In support of their argument, the defendants cited Dr. Sakalis opinion that Dr. Haltrccht was under "no obligation to monitor [Mr. Wolbcrg'sl chronic Hepatitis C, which had been diagnosed in 1993, [sinceJ decedent advised Dr. 1-Iaitrccht that he was under the care of Melissa Palmer, a gastrocnterologist and hepatologist for his Hepatitis C, and that when Dr. Haltrecht asked Mr. Walberg about his Hepatitis Con three occasions, he refused to see a gastrocnterologist." 1 In the original decision, the court denied defendants' summary judgment motion, finding that Dr. Haltrecht owed a duty of care to Mr. Wolberg in light of the record showing that Dr. Haltrccht was involved in monitoring and managing Mr. Wolberg's overall care, including his liver function and his awareness of Mr. Walberg' s long standing l Icpatitis C. The court also found that while based on the affirmation of their expert, the Haltrecht defendants made a prima facie showing entitling them to summary judgment, that plaintiff controverted this showing based on the opinions of his expert. The Haltrecht defendants now move for renewal and reargument of the original decision. In support of their request for renewal, defendants submit the supplemental affirmation of their expert Dr. Sakalis regarding screening guidelines of the American Association of the Study of Liver Disease ("the Guidelines"), for individuals like Mr. Wolberg with I Jepatitis C. Significantly, the Guidelines were referenced in Dr. Sakalis' original affirmation in paragraphs 54 and 55, It is only alter the denial of their motion for summary j udgmcnt that the Haltrccht defendants seek reargmnent and renewal based on the Guidelines. A motion for reargumcnt is addressed to th.e discretion of the court and is inlended to I give a party an opportunity to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied a controlling principle of law. Sec Foley v. Roche, 68 A,,D.2d 558~. 567 (1st Dept 1979). I lowever, reargumcnt is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party 2 3 of 5 [*[FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 10:56 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 330 INDEX NO. 155698/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 successive oppm1unities to rcarguc issues previously decided. William P. Pahl Equipment Corp. v. Kassis, 1S2 AD2d 22, 27 appeal denied in part dismissed in part 80 NY2d I 005 ( 1992). J\ motion to renew ... is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, ' although in existence at the time of the original motion. were unknown to the party seeking rcnew<:tl <l,Ild therefore not brought to the com1's attention .. , !Q Under these standards, the 1-Ialtrecht defendants fail lo provide a legally sufficient basis for consideration or Dr. Sakal is' supplemental affirmation, as the Guidelines were in issue in the original motion. While plaintiff submits opposition to the motion to reargue and renc\v and also subrnits a supplemental expert affirmation, that affirmation like that of the defendants is no\ properly considered. 1 ln reaching its decision, the court notes that Lhe Guidelines relied on by Dr. Sakalis in his supplemental affirmation are not dispositive of the issues on this motion since although .. lg Iuidcl ines are a li1ctor be considered \vi th respect to the standard of care ... they nre recommendations regarding treatment and compliance with guidelines 'do not constitute the stat1clard of care.'" 15Jj van v. Karninetskv. 57 Misc3d 1222( A), *6 (Sup Ct NY Co. 201 7 ), quoting I Jails v. Kiyici, 104 AD3d 502, 504 (I st Dept 2013). Instead, "the standard of care lor physicians is one established by the medical profession." Id, citing Toth v. Community Hospital at Glen Clov, 22 NY2d 255, 262 ( 1968). Next, there is also no basis for granting reargumcnt of the court's finding that Dr. Haltrccht owed Mr. Wolbcrg a duty with respect to monitoring his Hepatitis C. First, although the Haltrecht defendants supported their argument as to lack of duty with Dr. Sakalis' affidavit, 1 At a conference held on October 22, 2020, the court denied a letter request by counsel for the Haltrecht defendants for permission to submit reply papers in response to the supplemental expert affidavit submit by plaintiff in opposition .. 3 4 of 5 [*[FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/11/2020 10:56 AM] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 330 INDEX NO. 155698/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/11/2020 as the court noted in the original decision, "[ w]hether a duty is owed in the first instance is a question for the court, and generally not an appropriate subject for expert opinion" DallasStephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d at 307 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, as poi,ntcd out by plaintiff in opposition, the record shows that although Mr. Wolberg had treated for his llcpatitis C with a specialist, Dr. Palmer, since the early 1990's, by the time Mr. Wolberg began I . treating with Dr. Haltrecht in 2008, he had stopped seeing Dr. Palmer. In addition, evidence that Mr. Wolberg refused to be treated by a specialist for his Hepatitis in 2011 and 2012, docs not negate the duty owed to Mr. Wolbcrg by Dr. Haltrecht as his primary care physician, who was awure of his Hepatitis C and monitoring his liver function. Sec Lindenbaum v Federhush, 144 ADJd 869, 870 (2d Dept 2016) (holding that defendant primary care physician owed plainti!Ta duty of care when he spoke with plaintiff about test results and advised him to continue taking the prescribed medication). In view of he above, it is ORDERED that the Haltrecht defendants' motion for r DA TED: December t 2020 4 5 of 5

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.