dr michael cross leaving hss dr michael cross leaving hss

dr michael cross leaving hss. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER 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. Accordingly, the cross motion was properly denied, regardless of its merits. As to HSS, the court noted that the motion was clearly untimely, without explanation. While continuing at HJD, plaintiff also sought treatment at Mt. with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. 523 e 72nd st attention: michael cross, m.d. He underwent a course of steroid injections. Dr. Michael M. Alexiades is an orthopedist in Lake Success, New York and is affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area, including Hospital for Special Surgery and New York-Presbyterian. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Quite likely, the City's legal argument would have been dispositive. . I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. Sinai. However, it is a well-established rule of statutory construction that a court should avoid any interpretation that leads to absurd and unintended consequences (see Matter of Friedman-Kien v City of New York, 92 AD2d 827, 828-829 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 923 [1984], citing Matter of Chatlos v McGoldrick, 302 NY 380, 387-388 [1951]; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, 92, 145, 147). Find a Doctor: By Name, Specialty, Location & Insurance Find a Doctor At HSS, the world's best musculoskeletal specialists work together to provide the best care for you. 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. The motion court granted defendant HJD's motion for summary judgment and denied HSS's motion for the same relief. Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve as a question of fact whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff" (citing Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]). According to Girardi, after viewing the films, in his opinion the severity of plaintiff's spinal disease and the low prospect of improvement did not warrant the risks of surgery. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004], citing Brill [denying untimely filed summary judgment motion because although the plaintiff argued she had meritorious case, no reasonable excuse was provided as to the motion's late filing]; see also Casas v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 105 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2013] [upholding order striking answer where the defendant offered no reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with discovery order and provide a meritorious defense]). The le-de-France tramways ( French: Tramways d'le-de-France) is a network of modern tram lines in the le-de-France region of France. 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. and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. 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. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. After review of the MRI, he determined that no further surgery for the cervical spine was indicated and that there should be no lumbar spine surgery "at this time." Auto. Feinman, J. Appellate Division, First Department ), 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. The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. hilton houston address. However, bending the rule results in the practical elimination of the "good cause shown" aspect of CPLR 3212(a), and the clear intent of Brill. 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. Here, at the time HSS submitted its untimely motion for summary judgment, the proceedings were already stayed by the concededly timely summary judgment motion brought by HJD. Michael B. Health A-Z. Acknowledgment Hospital for Special Surgery gratefully thanks the Autumn Benefit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for . 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." Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." 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. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Plaintiff had a history of severe cervical disc disease going back to 1989. If it was indeed the Legislature's intent to preclude dilatory conduct, not to deprive a court of the ability to resolve an entire case summarily, then it falls within the observation of the United States Supreme Court in Holy Trinity Church v United States (143 US 457, 472 [1892]) that "however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, [*15]although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.". 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). Financial Disclosures. Find expert care and book online. Co., LLC, 48 AD3d 337, 337 [1st Dept 2008]; Alexander v Gordon, 95 AD3d 1245, 1246-1247 [2d Dept 2012]; Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592 [2d Dept 2007]). Lapin relied on Altschuler v Gramatan Mgt., Inc. (27 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2006]), which held it proper to consider the untimely "cross motion," in particular because it was "largely based" on the same arguments raised in the timely motion for summary judgment, and the same findings would apply for both it and the timely motion. Sinai. The best working with the best. 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). The result will be judicial economy, as well as lawyerly economy. Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. Remote Second Opinion Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. 535 E 70th St . However, the City gave no explanation for why its motion was made close to a year after the trial calendar papers were filed. After surgery, he was pain-free but did not recover a full range of motion in his upper left arm. Skip to main content. "It is well settled that the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts' (Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 187 [1987]). The practice sought to be deterred in Brill is delay occasioned by the submission of a summary judgment motion on the eve of trial, thereby staying proceedings to the prejudice of litigants who have applied their resources in preparation for trial of the issues (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Find Providers by Specialty Find Providers by Procedure. Location in NY, NJ, CT and Florida. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. Education VANDERBILT UNIV SCH OF MED, Medical School 2006 hurley joggers womens; sink clips not long enough; viewsonic vx3276 mhd reset; usaa dental insurance number; dr michael cross leaving hss. In sum, an outdated, pre-Brill interpretation of the amended CPLR 3212(a) continued to hold sway in Lapin. World-Renowned Experts Focused on You As leaders in the field, the doctors at HSS Florida have years of experience in caring for people with all types of orthopedic conditions, from persistent knee pain to shoulder injuries. "The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Twelve lines are currently operational (counting Lines T3a and T3b as separate lines), with extensions and additional lines in both construction and planning stages. Dr. Petrizzo testified that the overwhelming majority of patients with cervical myelopathy do not regain function after decompression surgery. . Of these, only molybdenum is a metal. Tel: (212) 606-1000. To the contrary, the compelling interest is judicial economy, which militates in favor of summary disposition of even an untimely motion made in response to one timely filed (see Burns, 307 AD2d at 864), [*16]especially if that "summary judgment motion may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). We therefore affirm the branch of the motion court's order which denied HSS summary judgment as untimely made without consideration of its merits. Under the circumstances presented by this matter, this view constitutes an unnecessarily rigid application of [*14]CPLR 3212(a), contravening the sound policy considerations underlying the decision and the intent expressed by the Legislature in amending the statute. The motion court properly dismissed the case as against HJD. The majority concludes that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any injury sustained as a result of the delay in surgery and upholds the dismissal of the complaint as against HJD on this ground a result in which I wholly concur. Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. 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. 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. Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]). 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. On November 11, 2011, HJD moved for summary judgment, making its motion returnable on December 14, 2011. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. at 236, citing Andrea, Miceli, Brill, and Kihl). In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). [*17]. He submitted the affidavit of his medical expert, Michael J. Murphy, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Connecticut. by Peter Gordon. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. In that context, where "[t]he violation is clear," the "good cause" required to obtain relief from the statutory time limit is "a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness" in filing the motion (id. Your email address will not be published. Plaintiff undertook these programs through HJD's clinic, and was treated continuously until September of 2005. The majority thereby dispenses with the salutary aspects of summary disposition acknowledged in Brill for no apparent purpose. Cross is an orthopedist in Lafayette, Indiana. Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. However, the solution, the Court of Appeals explains, is not for the courts to overlook or bend CPLR 3212(a) to fit the particular circumstances, but for "practitioners [to] move for summary judgment within the prescribed time period or offer a legitimate reason for the delay" (id.). Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. 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. 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. It reasons that because Brill emphasizes the advantages of summary judgment, with which we of course agree, those advantages outweigh a consistent application of the statute. Because of the particular procedural posture of this matter, the order directing that it proceed to trial is ultimately futile, but application of the majority's rationale will unnecessarily burden both courts and litigants. 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. HSS Florida is a joint venture with Tenet Healthcare. HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. 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. MichaelPaulAstMDFAAOS Orthopaedic Surgery New York, NY Hip & Knee Reconstructive Surgery Assistant Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Chief Medical Innovation Officer Vice Chair, HSS Innovation Institute Hospital for Special Surgery Join to view full profile Office 541 East 71st Street 6th Floor New York, NY 10021 Phone+1 201-599-8056 McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. He has 16 years of experience. 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. At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. Plaintiff subsequently underwent the subject procedure at nonparty Mt. Given the budgetary constraints presently confronted by the court system, this is hardly a fitting time to require trial of a matter devoid of apparent merit and otherwise amenable to disposition on motion, and the "genuine need" to be accommodated is that of the court to proceed expeditiously (id.). Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. In March of 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS with complaints of pain in his lower back and left leg. The same expertise that has earned HSS the #1 ranking for orthopedics in the world by Newsweek and the #1 ranking in the U.S. 13 years in a row according to U.S. News & World Report* is available locally through a unique collaboration with the caring experts at Stamford Health.