Sinai for much of that time. Parker v LIJMC-Satellite Dialysis Facility, 92 AD3d 740, 741-742 [2d Dept 2012] [failure to receive significant outstanding discovery before the deadline for making motion for summary judgment provides good cause for allowing a late-filed motion for summary judgment]; see also Kase v H.E.E. In April 2003, plaintiff again returned because he was experiencing increased weakness in his right upper arm. florida math book ban examples - foyerhub.com The answer is yes. Times, Locations & Directions for Dr. Michael Cross - WebMD In the opinion of HJD's expert, surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option," as no surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's "significant" neurological deficits that had existed for many years. It was also Dr. Girardi's opinion that, given plaintiff's extensive spinal disease and the prospect of low improvement, the risk of surgery including quadriplegia or even death, was clearly not warranted. On November 19, 2004, the clinic notes indicate that Frelinghuysen planned to review the patient films with Girardi and "we will plan for an anterior cervical decompression and fusion at a later date." In that regard, the majority's disposition is antithetical, directing a party to try a case under circumstances to which Brill is inapposite because trial has been delayed not by an eleventh-hour summary judgment motion, but by one that is altogether timely. See times, locations, directions & contact information for Dr. Michael Cross in Indianapolis, IN. HSS Orthopedics Joins Forces With Stamford Health. The motion court granted HJD's motion and denied the motion of HSS. dr michael cross leaving hss. 2013 NY Slip Op 08548 Michael B. Cross, MD - 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10605 HSS admitted that its motion seeking summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint as against it was filed nearly two months after the court-imposed deadline for making dispositive motions,[FN2] but argued that it should be considered because it sought relief on the same issues raised in codefendant HJD's timely motion. Some decisions also reason that because CPLR 3212(b) gives the court the power to search the record and grant summary judgment to any party without the necessity of a cross motion, the court may address an untimely cross motion at least as to the causes of action or issues that are the subject of the timely motion (see Filannino, 34 AD3d at 281, citing Dunham v Hilco Constr. He underwent a course of steroid injections. According to the affidavit, Murphy reviewed the medical records and opined that surgery for plaintiff was "indicated as early as June 2003 when the diagnosis of cervical spondylitic myelopathy was made," and from that time until December 2005 when surgery was performed, plaintiff's neurological condition deteriorated. When the courts consistently "refus[e] to countenance" violation of statutory time frames, there will be fewer instances of untimely, improperly labeled motions, because "movants will develop a habit of compliance" with the statutory and court-ordered time frames, and late motions will include a good cause reason for the delay (id.). Required fields are marked *. Although raised in the context of a purported "cross motion," resolution of this appeal requires us to once again revisit the issue of untimely summary judgment motions. Sinai, where he was first seen in the orthopedic clinic on April 21, 2005. HSS Florida is a joint venture with Tenet Healthcare. Dr. Michael Cross - Great Orthopedic Surgeons An overly expansive application of Brill invites unintended consequences following from the Legislature's 1996 amendment of CPLR 3212(a). 523 e 72nd st attention: michael cross, m.d. Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well" (16 NY3d at 81). In June 2004, plaintiff returned to HSS with continuing complaints of progressive right shoulder weakness, increased neck pain and decreased balance. The best working with the best. hurley joggers womens; sink clips not long enough; viewsonic vx3276 mhd reset; usaa dental insurance number; dr michael cross leaving hss. new york, ny zip 10021-099 phone: (212) 774-2114 fax: (646) 797-8298 The provider's authorized official is Michael B Cross . In Levinson we held that there was no reason to address whether one of the "cross motions" was untimely because the moving defendants' timely motion had put plaintiff on notice that he needed to rebut the prima facie showing that he had not met the serious injury threshold; when the plaintiff in Levinson failed to do this, the complaint was correctly dismissed as to all codefendants. Footnote 2: Supreme Court's extension of the time to file dispositive motions had given the parties a total of 82 days after the filing of the note of issue on August 24, 2011. Strict and rigid application of Brill is even less understandable given the similarity of the grounds advanced by the respective hospitals in support of their summary judgment motions and the ground upon which disposition rests. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. This is also reflected in their individual motion papers. . Plaintiff underwent a two-stage cervical spine surgery in December 2005. Michael B. At his next visit on November 12, 2004, a different doctor indicated in the clinic notes that Frelinghuysen and Girardi had recommended "what sounds like a two-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion," and that plaintiff would follow up in one week "to discuss surgery" [*3]with Frelinghuysen [FN1]. The clinic notes of June 11, 2004 indicate that his "symptoms have progressed with increased right shoulder atrophy"; a new round of studies was scheduled. The dissent considers our application of Brill in this instance to be "rote," and that our interpretation is antithetical to that decision's policy considerations of preventing eve-of-trial summary judgment motions. Likewise, the legislative memorandum in support of the amendment to CPLR 3212(a) is concerned with the disruption to court calendars by a motion interposed on the eve of trial (Sponsor's Mem, L. 1996, ch 492 reprinted in 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 2432-2433). He was found to have "significant" cervical stenosis and compression of his spinal cord, as well as cord signal change especially at C3-4 and C4-5. Brill draws a bright line based on the two elements of CPLR 3212(a): the statutorily imposed or court-imposed deadlines for filing summary judgment motions, and the showing of good cause by a late movant in order for its motion to be considered. Indeed, in our view, the dissent wrongly interprets the statute by claiming that the "good cause shown" prong is not always a part of the CPLR 3212(a) analysis. In support of its motion, HSS even relies on the same affidavit by Dr. Olsewski submitted in support of HJD's motion. Our decision is not one on the merits of plaintiff's claim, and it is therefore premature to bemoan that we have opened a Pandora's box for surgeons. Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the "recurring scenario" of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect "ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice" (2 NY3d at 650). HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today Plaintiff testified that on his third visit with Frelinghuysen in December 2004, the doctor told him that they could not do the surgery, but did not give him "a reason that made any sense." Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Hospital 1 Medical Village Dr Edgewood, KY 41017. Sinai orthopedic surgeon observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving.". At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. After residency, Dr. Cross completed his fellowship in Adult Reconstruction at Rush University Medical Center in 2013where he won the Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award. Michael B. Overall rating 4.92 Wait time 3.69 Bedside manner 4.85 Your trust is our top concern, so providers can't pay to alter or remove reviews. Under the circumstances presented, the motion court was within its discretion to review HSS's motion on the merits (see Alexander, 95 AD3d at 1247; Grande, 39 AD3d at 591-529). Plaintiff had a history of severe cervical disc disease going back to 1989. In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). Your email address will not be published. While the Brill rule may have caused some practitioners and courts to wince at its bright line, by the time the motions at issue in this case were made, the Court of Appeals had already reiterated on more than one occasion, and in varying contexts, that it meant what it said (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74 [2010], citing Brill [dismissal after repeated failures to serve bill of particulars and noncompliance with enforcement order]; Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion in New York, NY ", As to the delay causing any injury, the doctor stated that there was no identifiable injury caused by any alleged delay during the four month period between when plaintiff was first seen at HJD and when he first went to Mt. Peltz & Walker, New York (Bhalinder L. Rikhye of counsel), for appellants-respondents. The majority concludes that summary disposition is precluded by the Court of Appeals' decision in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), without reference to the judicial policy espoused in the opinion. As the Court of Appeals has admonished, " No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided, and no judge can write freely if every sentence is to be taken as a rule of law separate from its association'" (Matter of Staber v Fidler, 65 NY2d 529, 535 [1985], quoting Dougherty v Equitable Life Assur. Dr. Michael Cross | Total Joint Replacement | OrthoIndy Hip & Knee Doctor The majority sustained the action as against HSS as a result of the hospital's submission of its summary judgment motion after the date set by the trial court pursuant to CPLR 3212(a). We are concerned that the respect for court orders and statutory mandates and the authoritative voice of the Court of Appeals are undermined each time an untimely motion is considered simply by labeling it a "cross motion" notwithstanding the absence of a reasonable explanation for its untimeliness. On October 1, 2004, plaintiff first met with defendants Peter Frelinghuysen, M.D. Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . Orthopedic surgeon to know: Dr. Michael B. Cross of Hospital for Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. HSS also argued that the claim of lack of informed consent should be dismissed, given that no procedure requiring consent had been performed. In October, 2006, plaintiff returned to HJD again complaining of continued lack of strength in upper extremity and numbness and pain in the right arm and hand. You're all set! Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. They work like a well-oiled machine. Dr. Michael M. Alexiades, MD | Lake Success, NY | Orthopedist | US News Request an Appointment 317.275.6191 (Fax: 317.884.5360) Meet Dr. Michael Cross Dr. Cross earned his bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. He graduated medical school from Vanderbilt University as a member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society. He received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and has been in practice between 11-20 years.. HSS Names Michael P. Ast, MD, Vice-Chair and Chief Medical Innovation Brill holds that to rein in these late motions, brought as late as shortly before trial, CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment must be brought within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue or the time established by the court; where a motion is untimely, the movant must show good cause for the delay, otherwise the late motion will not be addressed (see Isolabella v Sapir, 96 AD3d 427, 427 [1st Dept 2012]). Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon White Plains, NY MedicineNet dr michael cross leaving hss The majority thereby dispenses with the salutary aspects of summary disposition acknowledged in Brill for no apparent purpose. Cross, MD. "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. Palomo v 175th St. Realty Corp., 101 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2012]; Conklin v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., 49 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008]; Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281-282 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 862 [2007]; Osario v BRF Constr. hilton houston address. Both HSS and HJD established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, proffering evidence that plaintiff did not sustain any injury resulting from the respective institutions' independent decisions to recommend against further surgery. To lend legal support to plaintiff's theory would place the surgeon in an impossible situation perform a procedure that is deemed to be ill-advised, taking into consideration the individual physician's experience and the available hospital facilities, and be subject to liability for any aggravation of the patient's condition or decline to operate and face liability for refusing to assume the substantial risk that surgery entails. With the advantage of hindsight, the doctor offers that "[w]hile further diagnostic studies were not inappropriate, they did not contribute any substantial information which would alter the indicated treatment." Rote application of the summary judgment provision, which permits the court to "set a date after which no such motion may be made," leads to the result advocated by the majority strict rejection of the motion as untimely without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, relegating the moving party to litigating its position at trial. Moreover, the exception discussed in Filannino allowing the courts to consider proper but untimely cross motions, at least as to issues shared with the original motion, addresses the dissent's concern that a cross-moving party might be caused to file its motion late because it had insufficient time before the deadline occurred. Dr. Petrizzo testified that the overwhelming majority of patients with cervical myelopathy do not regain function after decompression surgery. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon, New York, New York. As to HSS, the court noted that the motion was clearly untimely, without explanation. Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. Post-operatively, in February and April 2006, plaintiff indicated that he felt returning strength in his right arm although not his left, and a general "slow improvement." In Brill the Court of Appeals indicated that late-filed summary judgment motions are "another example of sloppy practice threatening our judicial system" (2 NY3d at 652, emphasis added), and pointed to its earlier decision, Kihl v Pfeffer (94 NY2d 118 [1999]), which affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to respond to a court order within the court-ordered time frame. (108 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2013]) Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. Here, however, because HSS and HJD have different treatment histories with plaintiff, HJD's timely motion did not clearly put plaintiff on notice of the need to gather evidence in opposition to the arguments ultimately proffered by the HSS defendants. Plaintiff cites no precedent for imposing liability under these circumstances, and no comparable New York case has been located. NYC surgeon, beauty-queen wife settle divorce amid hooker allegations In opposing the "cross motion," the plaintiff argued that it was untimely, and, secondarily, that it was devoid of merit. Skip to main content. Cross is a radiation oncologist. In Frelinghuysen's words, he and Girardi decided that surgery "would not help." 35 Mayflower Avenue Unit B Stamford, CT 06906 Phone +1 (212) 987-OSET (6738) CONTACT US . RX Drugs & Medications Vitamins & Supplements. This is clear by tracing Lapin's antecedents. Michael B. There is nothing in the language of the statute to suggest this and it opens the door to abuse; once one movant has timely filed, any other party can argue that its motion, no matter when filed, should be addressed. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. As this Court recently noted in Williams v New York City Tr. The NPI number of this provider is 1235397043 and was assigned on May 2008. To the extent that good cause is even material under these circumstances, it is the sheer impossibility of preparing a dispositive motion during the remaining time established by the court for its submission. 212.606.1823 212.734.3833 (fax) www.hss.edu alumni@hss.edu. Dr. Murphy conclusively states that plaintiff's condition progressively deteriorated during the period of treatment at defendant hospitals, yet he points to no objective evidence supporting this statement, despite the fact that the record contains numerous diagnostic tests over that period of time. Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. MedicineNet. Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. ), entered July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Hospital for Special Surgery, Peter Frelinghuysen, and Federico Pablo Girardi (collectively HSS) only to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's claim of lack of informed consent, and otherwise denied the motion, and from the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, dismissing the complaint as against defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. An MRI taken of his right shoulder in May 2005 showed "severe atrophy" of certain muscles and "mild atrophy" of other muscles, "likely due to the patient's cervical myelomalacia." Find expert care and book online. Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." As to the procedural issue raised, the majority has devised a solution to a problem recognized neither by the Legislature nor the Court of Appeals. The motion by HSS was submitted shortly after the end of the holiday season on January 10, 2012, and the respective motions were finally decided by the motion court on July 16, 2012, over seven months later. He is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery and graduated from VANDERBILT UNIV SCH. In July, 2005, plaintiff saw orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Hecht of Mt. In particular, the records suggest that HSS believed surgery was appropriate and helpful in as early as 2003, surgery is repeatedly mentioned in the records of 2004, and plaintiff believed that surgery had been scheduled. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his. In James, the defendant moved for summary judgment and the codefendant served its cross motion late but before the original motion had been decided; James held that the untimely cross motion should have been considered as the original motion was still pending and both could have been decided together. [Habiterra Assocs. An MRI of his cervical spine taken the same day found "severe central canal and severe neural foraminal stenosis," resulting in "severe myelomalacia of the spinal cord" from C3 to mid-C5 level. Copyright 2023 OrthoIndy. with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. Dr. Cross is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. HSS did not merely rely on the papers amassed by HJD, and as the motion court correctly noted, "[d]ifferences [in the factual record] necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]" and he was "a patient [at HJD] from only February 2005 to September 2005. In short, the HSS "cross motion" was more than a late "me too" motion and should not have been considered on its merits. Thereafter, the motion court issued an order which provided that "[t]he time for the various defendants to move for summary judgment is extended through November 14, 2011." Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. However, the expert failed to support his assertion with an analysis of the multiple diagnostic tests and physical examinations conducted over the years. A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. The dissent expresses concern about an extra burden to the courts and litigants if we strictly enforce Brill "without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case." Our focus is the rehabilitation of lives, delivered through evidenced-based therapy, with . ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall Co-Chief of the Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, and John Cavanaugh, PT, MEd, ATC, SCS, Clinical Supervisor, HSS Sports Rehabilitation and Performance Center, at the 2012 Summer Olympic. Dr. Michael Cross, MD, Orthopedic Surgery | Indianapolis, IN | WebMD On March 24, 2016, Dr. Machler reported the results of a weeklong skin patch test, in which plaintiff was exposed to 121 allergens against the skin of his back. In July 2005, he was examined by an orthopedic surgeon who determined that plaintiff needed surgery to prevent his condition from worsening, not in order to regain function. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. He further opined that there was no identifiable injury sustained in the four-month period between plaintiff's first visit at HJD and when he first went to Mt. and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Find All Providers . Dr. Michael Brian Cross, MD Orthopedic Surgery Leave a review Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd, Indianapolis, IN, 46278 12 other locations (317) 802-2000 Overview Locations OVERVIEW. HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. Unlike the dissent, we do not find that a straightforward interpretation of the statute, or Brill, leads to "absurd and unintended consequences," especially as the Court of Appeals acknowledges in Brill that if the strictures of CPLR 3212(a) are applied "as written and intended," there may be situations where a meritorious summary judgment motion may be [*8]denied, "burdening the litigants and trial calendar with a case that in fact leaves nothing to try" as was the result in Brill (2 NY3d at 653). Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements.
Newsletter
Cadastre-se para receber nossa newsletter e conhecer em primeira mão todos os shows, experiências e eventos do ALL Signature