dr michael cross leaving hss

Particularly, the majority holds that the summary judgment motion interposed by HSS was untimely and beyond the motion court's power to entertain pursuant to Brill. To the extent HSS's motion was directed at the complaint, as opposed to any cross claims by HJD, and was not made returnable the same day as the original motion, it was not a cross motion as defined in CPLR 2215. Significantly, Brill deals with the straightforward situation in which an initial summary judgment motion is filed well after a matter has been certified as ready for trial "in violation of legislative mandate" (id. [*9]. 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. The clinic notes indicated that plaintiff "need[ed] a decompression at C3-4, C4-5 and C6-7," that "probably" this would be done in an anterior approach, and that "surgery will be booked in the near future." We are in agreement that this action was properly dismissed as against HJD; however, a procedural bar is perceived by the majority to prevent this Court from summarily disposing of the action as against HSS. Plaintiff was referred for pain management and to HJD's neurology and hand clinics, with the notation that "no further surgery for the cervical spine [was] indicated.". Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. Sinai. Thus, his opinion is an ambiguous statement of causation, amounting to bare conjecture, which is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728-729 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408, 410-411 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Dr. Olsewski opined that based upon plaintiff's medical, diagnostic and surgical history, further cervical surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option." Dr. Michael B. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals refused to address the motion on its merits, pursuant to CPLR 3212(a). However, the expert failed to support his assertion with an analysis of the multiple diagnostic tests and physical examinations conducted over the years. at 652). A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Rather, it will be for a trial court and a jury to hear plaintiff's case, and should plaintiff prevail, then, assuming a timely appeal is taken and perfected, and only then, will we have occasion to consider the merits of the claim against HSS. Dr. Michael Alexiades, MD - Lake Success, NY | Orthopaedic Surgery MichaelMAlexiadesMD Orthopaedic Surgery Lake Success, NY Hip & Knee Reconstructive Surgery Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Cornell University-Weill Medical College Join to view full profile Office 2800 Marcus avenue Lake success, NY Lake Success, NY 11042 "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. He then attended medical school at Vanderbilt University, graduating in 2006. The progress notes from June 25, 2005 indicate, in part, that he had "marked stenosis throughout spine," and "marked atrophy at both shoulder girdles." Ctr., 123 AD2d 843 [2d Dept 1986]). Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." 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. 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. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Jewish-Hillside Med. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. In opposing the "cross motion," the plaintiff argued that it was untimely, and, secondarily, that it was devoid of merit. Of course, it must be pointed out that the cross-movant would have good cause for its late motion in that situation, and the cross motion would be evaluated on its merits (see e.g. Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) President and CEO Louis A. Shapiro and Surgeon-in Chief and Medical Director Bryan T. Kelly, MD, today announced the appointment of Michael P. Ast, MD, hip and knee replacement surgeon and assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, as the new Vice-Chair of the HSS Innovation Institute and Chief Medical Cross, MD. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, New York Appellate Division, First Department, New York Appellate Division, First Department Decisions. 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. All Sessions by Michael B. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his. The majority thereby dispenses with the salutary aspects of summary disposition acknowledged in Brill for no apparent purpose. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. Co., LLC (48 AD3d 337 [1st Dept 2008]), for the principle that there is an exception to Brill for cases where a late motion or cross motion is essentially duplicative of a timely motion. Michael B. According to the patient notes, the examining physician found severe upper extremity atrophy. As this Court recently noted in Williams v New York City Tr. 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. Hospital for Special Surgery/Cornell Medical Center Residency, Orthopaedic Surgery, 2007 - 2012. 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. dr michael cross leaving hss. Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. Book online with our top ranked surgeons, physicians or specialists in orthopedics, rheumatology, or sports medicine. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. Brill reiterates Kihl's statement that, " [i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity'" (2 NY3d at 652-653, quoting Kihl at 123). 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. They work like a well-oiled machine. Again, in hindsight, he formulates a conclusory opinion that the more aggressive approach to treatment was the proper one; the competing medical factors to be considered in deciding whether to perform the surgery are simply not addressed. He is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery and graduated from VANDERBILT UNIV SCH. Granted, the HSS motion is not a cross motion, as denominated, and as such it is untimely (CPLR 2215). In addressing this problem, the Court of Appeals noted that "the Legislature struck a balance, setting an outside limit on the time for filing summary judgment motions, but allowing the courts latitude to set an alternative limit or to consider untimely motions to accommodate genuine need" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Cross is an orthopedist in Lafayette, Indiana. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. If the issue had been compression, surgery would have been performed to prevent further progression, but due to the degeneration of the spinal cord, decompressive laminectomies would have done little or nothing to address plaintiff's upper extremity issues. 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." (108 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2013]) Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. ", 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. 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.). The clinic notes also indicate that plaintiff told the examining physician that he had recently secured a job and was not interested "whatsoever" in immediate surgery; plaintiff disputes this and says he was not working at that time. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary judgment in his or her favor (GTF Mktg., Inc. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]). 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. 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. 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. The dissent's approach of judging a motion's merits without consideration of why it was untimely, can only lead to uncertainty and additional litigation as motions clearly barred by Brill become arguably permissible because one of the litigants perceives the motion to have merit and perceives no prejudice to the other side. Electrical studies performed on October 26, 2006 revealed no significant change from those done in 2005 although there was evidence of fibrotic changes; [*4]the studies showed the presence of moderate right and mild left carpal tunnel syndrome. Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. Dr. Cross completed his residency at HSS, where he was awarded the Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award and the Jean McDaniel Award, which is given to the Chief Resident who best demonstrates leadership, professionalism and ethics in the care of patients. You're all set! I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding and would dismiss plaintiff's claim of medical malpractice against defendants Hospital for Special Surgery and its physicians (collectively, HSS). Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery Dr. Petrizzo testified that the overwhelming majority of patients with cervical myelopathy do not regain function after decompression surgery. Accordingly, the order should be modified to the extent of granting defendant HSS's motion for summary judgment. No surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's neurological deficits, "which were significant by the time he presented at HJD, and had already existed for many years." In addition, the motion court correctly dismissed the second cause of action alleging lack of informed consent as plaintiff's papers did not address this claim. 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." The court then went on to comment in dicta that if its merits were examined, summary dismissal should be denied as there are substantial questions of 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.". [Habiterra Assocs. As to HJD, the court found that, "without any doubt, [its] moving papers, primarily through the thorough opinions expressed by [its expert], [made] out a prima facie case for the relief sought." Dr. Cross is board-certified with several association memberships, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the Orthopaedic Research Society, and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Although the system mainly runs in the . Michael B. It is true that since Brill was decided, this Court has held, on many occasions, that an untimely but correctly labeled cross motion may be considered at least as to the issues that are the same in both it and the motion, without needing to show good cause (see e.g. HSS also argued that the claim of lack of informed consent should be dismissed, given that no procedure requiring consent had been performed. While courts have deemed this mislabeling a "technical" defect which will be disregarded, particularly where the nonmovant does not object and it results in no prejudice to the nonmoving party (see Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d 403, 404 [2d Dept 2004]), in this case the nature of nonmovant plaintiff's opposition is that there was prejudice because to the extent the court deems HSS's motion a cross motion, the Brill rule is ignored. 2013 NY Slip Op 08548 Remote Second Opinion According to Dr. Olsewski, the best case scenario "was to stop further progression of the cervical myelopathy"; the worst could have resulted in permanent paralysis or death, risks "well beyond the standard. He met with another HSS doctor on October 22, 2004, who wrote that the plan was to have plaintiff return in November to see Frelinghuysen "for booking of his anterior disc fusion surgery." By making a cross motion, the party saves an extra day in court, and quite possibly the time and trouble of amassing fresh proof, if it happens that all or part of the evidentiary foundation on which the cross motion is based has already been produced for consideration (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1, 2215:2). Tue 7:00 am . Skip to main content. First of all, under the authority of Brill [2 NY3d 648 (2004)], the cross[]motion was clearly untimely without any explanation, and counsel is simply wrong when he argues that the cross[]motion raises the same issues as the motion timely made by [HJD].

Clear Fork High School Yearbooks, How To Tell If A Drunk Girl Likes You, Liberty Mutual Brad Commercial Script, Chris Williams Married At First Sight Birthday, Articles D