Parikh testified at his deposition that he first saw the plaintiff on April 24, 2008. Parikh prescribed medication to help the plaintiff relax, and advised him to see a psychiatrist. According to Mackauer, Parikh dismissed the plaintiff's pain as psychological and refused to physically examine him. She testified that the plaintiff complained that the pain in his stomach was "worse than it had ever been" and was "very different" from the pain he had experienced before. The plaintiff's wife, Donna Mackauer (hereinafter Mackauer), testified at her deposition that she accompanied the plaintiff to the April 21, 2009, follow-up visit, at which time he "was very gray and sweating," had a fever, could barely stand, and was "very emotional" because of his pain. ![]() On or about June 2, 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for medical malpractice against Parikh and his employer, the defendant Digestive Liver Disease Center, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical care by perforating the plaintiff's appendix during the April 13, 2009, colonoscopy, and then failing to diagnose him with a perforated appendix during the April 21, 2009, follow-up visit.Īt his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he presented to Parikh on April 21, 2009, complaining of severe pain, but Parikh would not allow the plaintiff to lie down during the visit and suggested that he seek psychiatric help. Two days later, on April 23, 2009, the plaintiff presented to the emergency room at Staten Island University Hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute perforated appendicitis. Parikh referred the plaintiff to his primary care physician for a psychiatric evaluation. Thereafter, on April 21, 2009, the plaintiff presented to Parikh in a highly emotional state, complaining of nonspecific abdominal pain. Divyang Parikh, a gastroenterologist, performed a colonoscopy on the plaintiff. ![]() ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated November 5, 2014, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Lichtenstein, P.C., Mineola, NY (Joseph L. Vaslas Lepowsky Hauss & Danke, LLP, Staten Island, NY (Neil F. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Īppellate Division, Second Judicial Departmentĭivyang Parikh, etc., et al., appellants. Such evidence may indicate the wisdom of consenting to the entry of an order of protection without admitting or denying the truth of the allegations, and avoid the prejudice of a judicial determination, especially if there is a possibility of a divorce being filed on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. Records, including portions which indicate that the petitioner was hit on a specific part of the body, and are relevant to diagnosis and treatment of petitioner’s injuries, will not be excluded. Singleton, the appellate court held that hospital records are also admissible at trial pursuant to the business records exception to hearsay rule. ![]() Burris, the appellate court held that such photos are admissible at trial to prove the seriousness of the petitioner’s injuries sustained in the alleged attack. If there are photos of the injuries, this should be known in advance because, in People v. In the combined demand, the opportunity to examine, in advance, the proof that will be used against the respondent avoids surprise at trial that can be fatal, and if the proof necessary to establish the charges are insufficient, again, a motion to dismiss is ripe for the making. In Re Elliton J., the family court held that both the court and the respondent may rely on such a response, not only as an argument, but as a truthful statement of the petitioner’s position of what is intended to be proved. ![]() The petitioner will be bound to this information. The exact dates, times, injuries, and other information needed to fulfill each and every element of the offense or offenses alleged as defined the penal laws is crucial to elicit from the petitioner. With this information it can be determined whether each of the elements has been satisfied or if the petition will be subject to dismissal. In the demand for a bill of particulars, it is essential to pin down the complainant to exactly which offense or offenses are being charged. It is important that a respondent serve a demand for a bill of particulars and combined demand (to obtain any evidence the petitioner will present, i.e., photos, recordings, medical reports, et.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |