Ruiz v Guadino

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Ruiz v Guadino 2021 NY Slip Op 30259(U) January 27, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 519190/19 Judge: Lawrence S. Knipel 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] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2021 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 519190/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2021 At an IAS Tern1 1 Part 57 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the Cou11ty of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brookly11, New York, on the 271h day of January, 2021. PRES ENT: HON. LAWRENCEKNJPEL, Justice. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X ANGEL LUIS RUIZ, Plaintiff, - against - Index No. 519190/19 SALVATORE GUADINO, DI>M; BROOKLYN PODIATRY ASSOCIATES; JOSE P. LOORDPM; DELOORPOD!ATRY ASSOCIATES and DR. NIRAL PATEL, DPM, Defendants. - - -- - - -- -- - - - - --- - -- --- - - - -- -- - - - - - - -X 0 fhe e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1 Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motio11 and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed,_ _ _ __ 51-53 Opposing Affidavits (Affir1nations), _ _ __ 57 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ __ 59 Upon tl1e foregoing papers in this pediatric 1nalpractice action, defendant Niral Patel, DPM (Patel) moves (in motion sequence [mot. seq.] three) for an order modifying the October 16, 2020 preliminary conference order (PC Order). Patel seeks to modify and clarify the PC Order on. the ground that it does not resolve the discovery issues that exist in this medical rnalpractice case. Patel notes that paragraph 4 (a) of the PC Order directs that authorizations be provided from "the date of 1 New York State Cot1rts ELectronic Filing Docume11t Numbers. 1 of 4 [*FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2021 10:29 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 INDEX NO. 519190/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2021 the accident," including subsequent and continuing treat1nent for alleged injuries, but argues that this pediatric inalpractice case does not in\'olve an "accident." Patel contends that the authorizations to be provided pursuant to the PC Order are insufficient, as they are geared to accident cases rather than inedical 1nalpractice cases. Specifically, Patel asserts that the PC Order does not require that authorizations be provided for prior conditio11s underlying tl1e need for medical services, but only for prior accidents. Patel also seelcs authorizations for all 1nedical providers for a period of five years prior to the alleged malpractice, contending that the fact that plaintiff has not worked for three years is tantainount to a claim of loss of enjoyment of life. I11 addition, Patel seeks authorizations regarding plai11tiffs lost earnings and Arons interview authorizations for plaintiff's various tnedical providers. Plaintiff, in opposition, asserts that Patel's inotion should be denied because he provided IRS authorizatio11s in satisfaction of defendant's lost earnings demand and notes that he has not worked since August 18, 2017, the date of the surgery/alleged malpractice herein, and not due to so1ne prior, undisclosed condition. Patel, in reply, appends a list of authorization detnands that were not the subject of the motion and raised for the first time in reply, including a request for prior surgeries to plaintiff's sl1oulder and lmee and subsequent pediatric surgery. Discussio11 The PC Order was designed to enco1npass 1nedical malpractice clai1ns notwithstanding the fact that the term "accident" is used as opposed to t11e for1n specifying the alleged acts of malpractice. As such, the inclusive definition of"accident" 2 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2021 10:29 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 INDEX NO. 519190/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2021 in the form requires disclosure of plaintiffs prior and subsequent treat1nents, as well as prior and subsequent injuries to the body parts that are the subject of the complaint. For these reasons, there is no need to vacate or inodify the PC Order. Patel has failed to annex plaintiffs bill of particulars and has failed to demonstrate that plaintiff is alleging a loss of enjoy1nent of life claim requiring him to provide authorizations beyond those related to the alleged injuries in this matter. Moreover, the defendants should have records of plaintiffs medical history, at least as it pertains to the treab11ent and st1rgical procedures performed by them, and thus, can delineate which authorizations they require as to ru1y alleged pre-conditions for whicl1 authorizations have not been provided. Patel has failed to substantiate any additional de111ands for autl1orizations. Patel has asserted that plaintiff had subsequent pediatric surgery, and plaintiff did not deny ti1is. Accordingly, plaintiff 111ust provide authorizations for the pediatric surgery that took place on April 27, 2018, at Manhattan Eye Ear and Throat. In any event, pursuant to the PC Order, plaintiff is obligated to give Arons authorizations and authorizations tOr all prior and subseque11t treatment to the body parts asserted in this action. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Patel's motion to modify the PC Order is denied to the extent that it seeks to modify or vacate the PC Order, and is only granted to the extent that the parties are directed to co1nply witl1 the discovery set forth in the PC Order; and it is further 3 3 of 4 [*FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/28/2021 10:29 AM INDEX NO. 519190/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/28/2021 ORDERED that plaintiff provide the following authorizations on or before February 25, 2021: (1) authorizations for his April 27, 2018 surgical procedure; (2) authorizations for any prior or subsequent treabnents related to the body parts impacted by tl1e alleged 111alpractice herein, to the exte11t not previously provided, and (3) Arons authorizations. This constitt1tes the decision and order oftl1e court. ENTER, J. S. C. 1·10\\;. L,.f\VV\'\t:.l>i-ui.... i'-1>1! l-- AOMINISTRATIVE JU GE 4 4 of 4

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.