WALSH v. LO PICCOLO

1 Citing case

  1. Borrillo v. Beekman Hosp

    135 Misc. 2d 1122 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987)

    On the other hand, it must be conceded that where a seemingly administrative act is not performed despite a physician's orders, a panel hearing has been required. This appears to have resulted from the disposition to resolve the doubt as to the nature of the case in favor of sending the matter to a panel (cf., Bleiler v Bodnar, 102 A.D.2d 226, 229-230, mod 65 N.Y.2d 65, supra; McCormack v Mount Sinai Hosp., supra; Chemnitz v Livreri, supra; Bamert v Central Gen. Hosp., supra; Walsh v Lo Piccolo, 127 Misc.2d 304). The justification is at least in part that Judiciary Law ยง 148-a is a statute which has been given an ever-increasing scope; that if there are issues which are even only colorably of a malpractice nature, they belong before a panel; and that there is no prejudice in sending the case to a panel since the panel may foster informal discussions which may promote settlement of malpractice issues (cf.