2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7040 (N.Y. 2018)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosa v. Delacruz

Court of Appeals of New York

Oct 23, 2018

2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7040 (N.Y. 2018)

Summary

In Rosa v Delacruz, 32 NY3d 1060, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 07040 [2018], the Court of Appeals found that where a plaintiff's doctor opined that tears were causally related to the accident, but did not address findings of degeneration or explain why the tears and physical deficits found were not caused by the preexisting degenerative conditions, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as it "failed to acknowledge, much less explain or contradict, the radiologist's finding.

Summary of this case from Alfaro v. Barcia

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 146 SSM 23

10-23-2018

Agripino Polanco ROSA, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v. Rafael DELACRUZ et al., Respondents.

Gratt & Associates, P.C., Sea Cliff (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for appellant. Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Henry Mascia of counsel), for Rafael Delacruz, respondent. Russo & Tambasco, Melville (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), and Law Office of Dennis C. Bartling, Westbury, for Devone Harp, respondent.

Gratt & Associates, P.C., Sea Cliff (Mitchell Dranow of counsel), for appellant.

Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Henry Mascia of counsel), for Rafael Delacruz, respondent.

Russo & Tambasco, Melville (Susan J. Mitola of counsel), and Law Office of Dennis C. Bartling, Westbury, for Devone Harp, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motions for summary judgment, defendants relied on independent physician reports finding that plaintiff had a normal range of motion six months following the accident, with no permanent effects, and on the results of a shoulder MRI performed six weeks after the accident by plaintiff's radiologist, who reported that plaintiff's rotator cuff tendons were intact and there was no MRI evidence of a tear. Plaintiff's responding medical submissions were inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact because they failed to acknowledge, much less explain or contradict, the radiologist's finding. Instead, plaintiff relied on the purely conclusory assertion of his orthopedist that there was a causal relationship between the accident and anterior labrum/rotator cuff tears that he observed (and repaired) during surgery nearly two years after the accident.

I respectfully dissent and would reverse the order of the Appellate Division, deny defendants' motions, and reinstate the complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendants met their initial burden on their respective motions, I would conclude that plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ).

Here, plaintiff tendered his medical records, together with reports of an orthopedist who examined him. The reports establish that the examining orthopedist diagnosed plaintiff with a rotator cuff tear shortly after the subject accident, concluded that such tear is causally related to the accident, and opined that the tear permanently limited plaintiff's use of his left shoulder (see generally Perl v. Meher , 18 N.Y.3d 208, 219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 [2011] ). The reports also sufficiently rebut defendants' theory that plaintiff's shoulder injuries were preexisting. The opinion of plaintiff's orthopedist with respect to the etiology of plaintiff's injuries is based on, among other things, that physician's review of plaintiff's medical history and personal observations that physician made during the arthroscopic procedure in which he repaired plaintiff's left shoulder (see generally id. at 218–219, 936 N.Y.S.2d 655, 960 N.E.2d 424 ). Given the conflicting expert opinions, summary judgment is not appropriate in this case. This is a matter to be resolved by a trier of fact.

I specifically note that plaintiff's orthopedist made this diagnosis based in part on his review of an MRI study of plaintiff's left shoulder that was conducted approximately six weeks after the subject accident.
--------

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Stein, Garcia and Feinman concur.

Judge Fahey dissents in an opinion, in which Judges Rivera and Wilson concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Summaries of

Rosa v. Delacruz

Court of Appeals of New York

Oct 23, 2018

2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 7040 (N.Y. 2018)

Summary of this case from Alfaro v. Barcia

Summary of this case from Armstrong v. Marmolejos

In Rosa v Delacruz, 32 NY3d 1060, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 07040 [2018], the Court of Appeals found that where a plaintiff's doctor opined that tears were causally related to the accident, but did not address findings of degeneration or explain why the tears and physical deficits found were not caused by the preexisting degenerative conditions, which were in plaintiff's own medical records, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as it "failed to acknowledge, much less explain or contradict, the radiologist's finding.

Summary of this case from Lugo v. EAN Holdings

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Prereira-Singletary

Summary of this case from Blake v. Moore

Summary of this case from Coombs v. Zelekowitz

Summary of this case from Gerrity v. Gerard Taxi Inc.

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. R.W. Bozel Transfer, Inc.

Summary of this case from Fajardo v. Aboubakar

Summary of this case from Martin v. German

Summary of this case from Harris v. Armonk Leasing Corp.

Summary of this case from Hoggrove v. Dominguez

Summary of this case from Deleon v. Fla. Trails, Inc.

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Mamoun