McDonald v. State, 13 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
McDonald v. State, 13 A.D.3d 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“claimant's allegation that the lack of medical treatment resulted in claimant's need for surgery is an allegation concerning the medical consequences of the lack of treatment and is an allegation that is not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons.”
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Darley v. United States (nysd, 2025-04-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Darley v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
claimant's allegation that the lack of medical treatment resulted in claimant's need for surgery is an allegation concerning the medical consequences of the lack of treatment and is an allegation that is not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stanton v. Waterfront Ctr. for Rehabilitation & Healthcare
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
As a preliminary matter, we conclude that plaintiff's first cause of action sounds in medical malpractice inasmuch as her "allegation that the lack of [appropriate] medical treatment resulted in [decedent's] need for surgery [to remove her left eye] is an allegation concerning the medical consequences of the lack of [appropriate] treatment and is an allegation that is not 'within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons' " ( McDonald v State of New York , 13 AD3d 1199, 1200 [4th Dept 2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dunbar v. Women & Children's Hosp. of Buffalo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Additionally, the first through third causes of action do not sound in ordinary negligence inasmuch as the allegations in the fourth amended complaint with respect to those causes of action involve matters "not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons" ( McDonald v State of New York , 13 AD3d 1199, 1200 [4th Dept 2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and thus the parties would be required to proffer expert testimony to establish the relevant standard of care concerning the challenged conduct ( see generally B.F. v Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of N.Y., LLP , 136 AD3d 73, …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sachs v. State (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of claimant’s proof at trial based upon his failure to present any expert medical evidence (see McDonald v State of New York, 13 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sachs v. State (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Contrary to claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss at the close of claimant’s proof at trial based upon his failure to present any expert medical evidence (see McDonald v State of New York, 13 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SACHS, MANFRED v. STATE OF NEW YORK
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Rather, we conclude that the claim is substantially related to medical diagnosis and treatment, and thus that “the action it gives rise to is by definition one for medical malpractice” (McDonald, 13 AD3d at 1200 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Weiner v Lenox Hill Hosp., 88 NY2d 784, 787-788 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abascal v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“Because the claim ‘substantially related to medical diagnosis and treatment, the action it gives rise to is by definition one for medical malpractice rather than for simple negligence’ ” (McDonald v State of New York, 13 AD3d 1199, 1200 [2004]; see Weiner, 88 NY2d at 788 ).
Timothy McDonald
v.
State of New York
Claim No. 105357.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2004.
13 A.D.3d 1199
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Edgar C. NeMoyer, J.), entered December 12, 2002. The judgment granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

[*1200] It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Contrary to the contention of claimant, the Court of Claims properly dismissed his claim based on his failure to present expert medical evidence. Because the claim “ ‘substantially related to medical diagnosis and treatment, the action it gives rise to is by definition one for medical malpractice rather than for simple negligence’ ” (Russo v Shah, 278 AD2d 474, 475 [2000]; see Harrington v St. Mary’s Hosp., 280 AD2d 912 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 710 [2001]). Claimant’s allegation that the lack of medical treatment resulted in claimant’s need for surgery is an allegation concerning the medical consequences of the lack of treatment and is an allegation that is not “within the ordinary experience and knowledge of laypersons” (Mosberg v Elahi, 80 NY2d 941, 942 [1992]). Expert medical opinion evidence was therefore required (see id.; Ferretti v Town of Greenburgh, 191 AD2d 608, 611 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 748 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 662 [1993]; Weiss v Zuckerman, 114 AD2d 895 [1985]). Present—Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.