Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Elliot v. Long Island Home, Ltd.green2 sentences2024Home, Ltd., 12 AD3d 481, 482 [2d Dept 2004]). 2024Home, Ltd., 12 AD3d 481, 482 [2d Dept 2004]). | 4 | 4 |
Novick v. South Nassau Communities Hospitalgreen2 sentences2024In fact, in a case directly involving treatment of a sacral pressure ulcer which progressed from Stage III to Stage IV, the Second Department held that a registered nurse "was not a medical doctor and lacked the qualifications to render a medical opinion as to the relevant standard of care, and whether the defendants deviated from such standard" ( Novick v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 136 AD3d 999, 1001 [2d Dept 2016]), citing Elliot v Long Is. 2024In fact, in a case directly involving treatment of a sacral pressure ulcer which progressed from Stage III to Stage IV, the Second Department held that a registered nurse "was not a medical doctor and lacked the qualifications to render a medical opinion as to the relevant standard of care, and whether the defendants deviated from such standard" ( Novick v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 136 AD3d 999, 1001 [2d Dept 2016]), citing Elliot v Long Is. | 3 | 3 |
Douglass v. Gibsongreen1 sentence2004Hosp., 227 AD2d 594 [1996]; Douglass v Gibson, 218 AD2d 856, 857 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Russell v. Garafalo
green
2 sentences2024In opposition, however, the plaintiffs, through the affirmation of a physician certified in pediatrics and neurology, raised triable issues of fact with respect to whether the defendants deviated from the standard of care and whether those departures were a proximate cause of the child's injuries ( see Revellino v Haimovic , 216 AD3d at 689; Russell v Garafalo , 189 AD3d at 1101-1102 ). 2024Where, as here, experts offer conflicting opinions, a credibility question is presented requiring a jury's resolution ( see Revellino v Haimovic , 216 AD3d at 689; Russell v Garafalo , 189 AD3d at 1102 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Restagno v. Horwitz
green
1 sentence2018The interrogatory proposed by the plaintiffs on this issue did not frame an appropriate question for the jury given the evidence ( see Restagno v Horwitz , 46 AD3d 533, 535 ; Marzuillo v Isom , 277 AD2d 362, 363 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Marzuillo v. Isom
green
1 sentence2018The interrogatory proposed by the plaintiffs on this issue did not frame an appropriate question for the jury given the evidence ( see Restagno v Horwitz , 46 AD3d 533, 535 ; Marzuillo v Isom , 277 AD2d 362, 363 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
LaMarque v. North Shore University Hospital
green
1 sentence2004Hosp., 227 AD2d 594 [1996]; Douglass v Gibson, 218 AD2d 856, 857 [1995]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mills v. Moriarty
green
1 sentence2004The plaintiffs purported expert was not a medical doctor and lacked the qualifications to render a medical opinion as to the relevant standard of care, and whether the defendants deviated from such standard (see Mills v Moriarty, 302 AD2d 436 [2003]; LaMarque v North Shore Univ. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.