throbber
INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`INDEX NO- 51356/2014
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 071112019 05:00 P I
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT H
`EXHIBIT H
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`To commence the 30-day statutory time period for appeals as of right under CPLR 5513 (a), you are advised to serve
`a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties.
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
`-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
`C L C Jr.'jan Infant by his Mother and Natural Guardian
`SYLVIA:IGREEN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`Index No. 51356/14
`Motion Seq. Nos. 008, 009
`Amended Decision and Order
`
`WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, MICHAEL
`,
`KESSLER MD, GEETHA RAJENDRAN MD,
`ADVANCED OB/GYN ASSOCIATES,
`
`!
`
`Defendants.
`-----------------------------------------------------------------)(
`EVERETT,J.
`
`The following papers were read on the motions:
`,
`Notice of Motion/Affirmation
`in Support/Exhibits A-C (docs 261- 265)
`R~ply Affirmation/Exhibit D (docs 281-282)
`
`in Support/Exhibit A (docs 268-270)
`Notice of Motion/Affirmation
`Reply Affirmation/Exhibit A (docs 279-280)
`
`Affirmation in Opp (doc 276)
`
`Iii this action sounding in medical malpractice, defendant Westchester Medical Center
`'I
`(WMC) moves, under motion sequence number 008, for an order, pursuant
`
`I
`
`to CPLR 4404 (a),
`
`(
`
`granting the following relief: (I) setting aside the jury's verdict
`
`in favor of pla)ntiff and directing
`
`judgment
`
`in favor of WMC; or (2) setting aside the jury's verdict
`
`in favor of plaintiff and
`
`directing a new trial on all issues; (3) setting aside the jury's verdict
`
`in favor of plaintiff and
`
`I
`
`directing'la new trial on the issue of damages, unless plaintiff stipulates to a substantial
`
`reduction.
`
`of the jury's awards; and (4) granting a hearing, pursuant
`
`to CPLR 4545,4546
`
`and 50-A, for the
`
`1 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`purpose of identifying collateral sources and structuring a judgment; and (5) declaring that any
`
`judgment entered reflect that portion of the award that provides for future medical expenses to
`be paid in accordance with Public Health Law 99 2999-g through 2999-j. Defendants Michael
`
`Kessler, M.D. (Kessler), Geetha Rajendran, M.D. (Rajendran) and Advanced Ob/Gyn Associates
`
`(Advanced Ob/Gyn) jointly move, under motion sequence number 009, for orders, pursuant
`
`to
`
`CPLR 4404 (a), 5031 and 550J, granting the following relief: (I) setting aside the jury's verdict
`
`and awarding judgment
`
`to defendants as a matter of law, or directing a new trial on the ground
`
`that the ve~dict was not based on a rational view of the evidence, or was contrary to the weight of
`
`the evidence; or (2) setting aside the jury's verdict and directing a new trial; or (3) conditionally
`
`reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering because they deviate materially from
`
`what would be reasonable compensation; and (4) granting a hearing, pursuant
`
`to CPLR 4545,
`
`4546 and 50-A, for the purpose of identifying collateral sources and structuring a judgment;
`
`(5) declaring that any judgment entered reflect that portion of the award that provides for future
`medical expenses to be paid in accordance with Public Health Law 99 2999-g through 2999-j;
`
`and (6) staying the entry of judgment pending a decision on this motion and a hearing to
`
`determine the proper calculation of the judgment under CPLR 5031. The motions, under motion
`
`sequence numbers 008 and 009, are consolidated for disposition and upon the foreg.oing papers,
`
`the motions are decided as set forth below.
`
`The theory of plaintiffs
`
`case is that the proximate cause of her son's preterm delivery and
`
`permanent preterm birth related injuries and deficits were Kessler and/or Rajendran's
`
`respective
`
`departures from accepted medical practice by their failures to offer a cerclage to address her
`
`cervical insufficiency during any of her three hospital visits and/or admissions
`
`in July 2010.
`
`2
`
`2 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`Plaintiff seeks to hold WMC vicariously liable for the negligeilt ~cts and/or omissions of the
`
`defendant physicians.
`
`The case was tried before a jury. During the course of the trial, the parties produced
`
`evidence relating to the central. issues of: (I) whether Rajendran departed from accepted medical
`
`practice by failing to offer plaintiff Sylvia Green (Green) a cerclage during the July 9-10
`
`admission; (2) whether Kessler departed from accepted medical practice by failing to timely
`
`obtain a maternal fetal medicine (MFM) consult during the July 13-14 admission and during the
`
`July 15-16 admission;
`
`(3) whether such departures were the proximate cause of the preterm
`
`delivery Ofplaintiffs
`
`son at 24 weeks gestation, and his related injuries and deficits; and (4)
`
`whether Green reasonably believed, based on the words or conduct of WMC, that Rajendran and
`
`Kessler were employees/agents of WMC, and accepted their services in reliance on the perceived
`
`relationship, and not in reliance upon the skill of Rajendtan and Kessler. The jury's verdict, as
`
`recorded-in the extract of May 17,2018, provides in relevant part:
`
`- Rajendran departed from accepted practice by not offering Green a cerclage
`during her July 9-10, 2010 admission, and that such departure was a proximate
`cause of the infant plaintiffs
`injuries.
`
`- Kessler departed from accepted practice by failing to timely obtain a MFM
`consult during Green's July 13-14, and 15-16,2010 admissions, and that such
`departure was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff s injuries.
`
`I
`
`.
`
`The jury apportioned fault to Rajendran and Kessler equally.
`"
`.
`- Green reasonably believed, based on the words or conduct of WMC, that
`Rajendran and Kessler were employees or agents of WMC, and that she accepted
`their services in reliance upon the perceived relationship between these physicians
`arid WMC, and not in reliance upon their skills as physicians.
`
`3
`
`3 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`The jury awarded:
`
`$5 million for past pain and suffering;
`
`$I5 million for future pain and suffering for 69 years;
`
`Future lost earnings in an annual amount of $ 113,000 for 39 years commencing
`on July 1,2032;
`
`Home care (until age 21) in the annual amount of$54,000 for 13.17 years;
`
`Residential/Home
`56 years;
`
`care (starting at age 2 I) in the annual amount of $163, 199 for
`
`Physical therapy in the annual amount of$13,104 for 13.17 years;
`
`Occupational
`
`therapy in the annual amount of $17,004 for 13.I7 years;
`
`Speech therapy in the annual amount of $17,784 for 13.17 years.
`
`As to defendants' contentions that the verdict should be set aside because it was not based
`
`on a rational view of the evidence, or was contrary to the weight of the evidence,
`
`it is well settled
`
`that: "a jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the
`
`jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation' of the evidence" (Victoria H v
`
`Board of Educ. of City of N. Y, 129 AD3d 912, 912 [2d Dept 20 I 5] [internal quotation marks and
`
`citations omitted]). Furthermore:
`
`is not supported by
`"[f]or a court to conclude as a matter oflaw that a jury verdict
`sufficient evidence ...
`lit must] first conclude that there is simply no valid line of
`reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational
`[people]
`to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at
`trial. The criteria to be applied in making this assessment are essentially those
`required of a Trial Judge asked to direct a verdict.
`It is a basic principle of our
`law that it cannot be correctly said in any case where the right of trial by jury
`exists and the evidence presents an actual issue of fact, that the court may properly
`direct a verdict. Similarly,
`in any case in which it can be said that the evidence is
`such that it would not be utterly irrational for a jury to reach the result it has
`
`4
`
`4 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`(
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`determined upon, and thus a valid question of fact does exist, the court may not
`conclude that the verdict
`is as a matter oflaw not supported by the evidence"
`
`(Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978] [internal quotation marks and citations
`
`omitted]).
`
`Having presided at the trial, and upon review of the evidence in conjunction with the
`
`the Court finds that the jury's verdict on liability was neither against the weight
`
`instant motions,
`1
`of the evidence, nor was it inconsistent with a fair interpretation of the evidence.
`
`In
`
`circumstances such as this, "[w]here ... conflicting expert testimony is presented,
`
`the jury is
`
`entitled to accept one expert's opinion and reject that of another expert" (Ferreira v Wyckoff
`
`Hgts. Med. Ctr., 81 AD3d 587, 588 [2d Dept 2011]). To find, as defendants ask, that the jury's
`
`verdict was unsupported or against the weight of the evidence presented, wO'uld require the Court
`
`to find that plaintiffs
`
`experts were not worthy of belief. This Court, having heard the evidence,
`
`is not willing to make that finding (see Loughman v Flint Co., i32 AD2d 507, 510 [1s Dept
`
`1987]).
`
`As to those aspects of the consolidated motions which seek a reduction of the jury's
`
`awards on the ground that the awards for past pain and suffering' ($5 million),
`
`future pain and
`
`suffering {$15 million over 69years),
`
`lost earnings ($113,000 for 39 years) and future medical
`
`expenses (as broken down above) are excessive,
`
`the motion is resolved as follows.
`
`In New York, "[t]he amount of damages to be awarded to a plaintiff
`
`for personal
`
`injuries
`
`is a question for the jury, and its determination will not be disturbed unless the award deviates
`
`materially from what would be reasonable compensation"
`
`(Peterson v MTA, 155 AD3d 795, 798
`
`[2nd Dept 2017]), and "[t]he reasonableness of compensation must be measured against relevant
`
`5
`
`~~,-------~~
`
`5 of 14
`
`--~
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`precedent of comparable cases" (Halsey v New York City Tr. Auth., 114AD3d 726, 727 [2014]
`
`[internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
`
`\.
`In Sence v Atoynatan (142 AD3d 600 [2d Dept 2016]); a medical malpractice case cited
`
`by both plaintiff and defendants involved a large jury verdict,
`
`including $4 million for past pain
`
`and suffering and $7,015,000 for future pain and suffering. The case centered on evidence that
`
`an infant sustained severe and permanent brain damage, with related deficits, as a result of the
`
`defendants' deviations from accepted standards of medical care. On appeal,
`
`the Appellate
`
`Division, Second Department, ~nding that the award for past pain and suffering deviated
`
`materially from what would be reasonable compensation, modified the entered judgment, and
`
`directed the parties to stipulate to reducing the amount to $2 million within a given period of
`
`time, and. in the absence .of such stipulation, remitting the matter to trial court for a new trial on
`
`damages on the question of past pain and suffering.
`
`While plaintiff cites to a series of cases which precede Sence by not less than 10 years,
`
`and prior.to the creation of the New York Medical Indemnity Fund (MIF) in 2011, defendants
`
`point to Reilly v Sf. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Center (143 AD3d 692 [2d Dept 2016]),1
`
`another medical malpractice action involving ajury finding ofliability for the severe birth-related
`
`neurqlogical
`
`injuries sustained by an infant plaintiff. The Reilly appeal was decided by the
`
`Appellate Division, Second Department approximately two months after Sence, albeit by a
`
`different panel.
`
`In its decision,
`
`the Appellate Court held, in relevant part. that the awards for past
`
`and future pain and suffering ($10 million past, and $82.5 million future, for a total of $92.5
`
`I Plaintiff cites Reilly v St. Charles Ho.ip. & Rehabilitation Center for the purpose of
`showing that the jury's verdict
`in this action is not out ofline with the jury verdict rendered in
`another medical malpractice case involving a severe brain injury sustained at birth.
`
`6
`
`6 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`million) Were excessive and deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation.
`
`After downward modification,
`
`the awards came to $750,000 past and $3.5 million future for a
`
`total of $4,250,000. Defendants argue that, because the neurologic injuries sustained by the
`
`instant infant plaintiff are less severe than those sustained by the Reilly infant plaintiff,
`
`the
`
`damages awards must be reduced to a commensurate level.
`
`In view of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the infant in this action, and
`
`upon comparison to the pain and suffering awards rendered in this action to the pain and
`
`suffering awards rendered in other recent medical malpractice cases involving infants who
`
`sustained brain injury at birth, the Court finds that the awards of $5 million (past) and $15
`
`million (future) materially deviate from what would be considered reasonable compensation (see
`
`Halsey v New York City Tr. Auth.; Quijano v American Tr. Ins. Co., 155 AD3d 981, 983-984 [2d
`
`Dept 2017]).
`
`It is suggested that the parties consider stipulating to reducing the awards to $2
`
`million for past pain and suffering and $7 million for future pain and suffering, sums which
`
`would be more reasonable in light of other similar medical malpractice actions.,
`
`As to the jury's award for future lost earning, defendants' motions are denied, as the
`
`evidence presented by plaintiff's
`
`expert was substantial and compelling, and defendants, who did
`
`not offer an expert to address this issue, failed to adequately refute plaintiff's
`
`evidence.
`
`The motions to set aside the balance of the jury award are also denied, as the awards,
`
`to the
`
`extent they are not reduced by virtue of the MIF,'which
`
`provides funds for future health care
`
`2 Assuming plaintiff qualifies for the MIF, to the extent his future medical expenses are
`paid out of the MIF, rather than by the defendants,
`their payout will be reduced.
`
`7
`
`7 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`costs associated with birth-related neurological
`
`injuries resulting from medical malpractice, are
`
`supported by the evidence.
`
`Regarding the jury's finding against WMC on the question of vicarious liability,
`
`it is well
`
`settled that a medical facility, such as WMC, may be held liable, under the theory of vicarious
`
`liability, for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, but not those of independent
`
`contractors/physicians who are not in its employ.
`
`It is also well settled that a hospital or medical
`
`facility (a principal) can, under the theory of apparent agency, and under certain circumstances,
`
`be held liable for the negligent acts or omissions of independent contractors/physicians who are
`
`not in its employ (see Hill v St. Clare's Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79-8 I [1986]).
`
`"Essential
`
`to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal,
`
`communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses
`
`authority" to act on behalf of the principal (Hallock v State o/New York, 64 NY2d 224, 23 I
`
`[1984J; see Merrell-Benco Agency, LLC v HSBC Bank USA. 20 AD3d 605, 608 [2005],/v
`
`dismissed and denied 6 NY3d 742 [2005]). A plaintiff seeking to hold a medical facility
`
`vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of a physician not in its employ must show that he or
`
`she reasonably relied on the appearance of authority based on "some misleading conduct on the
`
`part of the principal-not
`
`the agent" (Ford v Unity Hosp., 32 NY2d 464, 473 [1973J; see
`
`Merrell-Benco Agency, LLC v HSBC Bank USA, supra), and that he or she accepted the services
`
`of the ostensible agent in reliance, not upon that person's skill, but based on his or ~er
`
`relationship with the principal
`
`(see Hill v St. Clare's Hosp., 67 NY2d at 82; Nagengast v
`
`Samaritan Hosp., 211 AD2d 878, 880 (1995]).
`
`Under the leading case of Mduba v Benedictine Hosp. (52 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1976]), the
`
`8
`
`8 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`appellate court addressed the question of vicarious liability, and citing the Restatement of Torts,3
`
`determined that, because the defendant hospital held itself out to the public as a facility that
`
`furnishes doctors, staff and facilities for emergency treatment,
`
`it was:
`
`"under a duty to perform those services and is liable for the negligent performance
`of those services by the doctors and staff it hired and furnished to [the plaintiff].
`Certainly,
`the person who avails himself of hospital facilities has a right to expect
`satisfactory treatment from any personnel who are furnished by the hospital"
`
`(id. at 454).
`
`Upon a review of the evidence,
`
`the Court finds no cause to vacate the jury verdict
`
`ascribingvicarious
`
`liability to WMC for the actions of Kessler and Rajendrari. The evidence
`
`presented to the jury was that Green presented to nonparty ob/gyn Dr. Helen Hostin (Dr. Hostin)
`
`on July I, 20 I0, with complaints of right lower quadrant pain. Dr. Hostin referred Green to a
`
`maternal fetal medicine (MFM) specialist for an ultrasound and evaluation, and based on these
`
`results together with her own examination of Green several days later on July 6, 20 I0, Dr. Hostin
`
`admitted her to Nyack Hospital. Green was treated at Nyack Hospital until July 9, 2010, when
`
`Dr. Hostin transferred her, by ambulance,
`
`to WMC, because it was better equipped to treat
`
`Green's symptoms and a significantly premature ,infant.
`
`Upon her arrival at WMC, Green was seen by Rajendran, an MFM specialist. On the
`
`evening of July 10,2010, Green, who was not offered a cerclage by Rajendran, was subsequently
`
`discharged by Kessler (who did not actually see or examine her), and a staff nurse gave her an
`
`3 "One who employs an independent contractor to perform services for another which are
`accepted in the reasonable belief that the services are being rendered by the employer or by his
`servants,
`is subject to liability for physical harm caused by thc negligence of the contractor
`in
`supplying such services,
`to the same extent as though the employer were supplying them himself
`or by his servants" (Restatement, Torts 2d, S 429).
`
`9
`
`9 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`appointment
`
`to see Rajendran approximately one week later. On the evening of July 13, Green,
`
`who was experiencing certain symptoms (some spottinglbleeding) went to WMC. She was
`
`discharged several hours later (at approximately 3:30 a.m., on July 14,2010) by Kessler, who
`
`was on call, but who did not actually see or examine her. On the evening of July 15,2010,
`
`Green presented to WMC's emergency room complaining of contractions and vaginal spotting.
`
`Kessler, who was again on call, examined her, and admitted her to labor and delivery. Rajendran
`
`saw Green at approximately 9:00 a.m., the next morning, and spoke with her about the
`
`circumstances surrounding her preterm labor. The infant plaintiff, who was born at
`,
`approximately 10:40 a.m., was delivered by Kessler.
`
`WMC argues that, because the treatment Green received from Rajendran and from
`
`Kessler was initiated by her private physician, Dr. Hostin,' who had advised Green that she (Dr.
`
`Hostin) was going to contact her "colleagues" at WMC, the logical conclusion is that Green's
`
`private physician was referring her to private attending physicians at WMC. WMC also points to
`
`the fact that Green was given a follow-up appointment with Rajendran at Rajendran's off-
`
`premises office as further evidence that G,'een should have been aware that Rajendran was not on
`
`WMC's staff of employees. Finally, WMC argues that the inclusion of WMC's name on the
`
`letterhead of forms provided to Green to fill out with respecUo the different medical services
`
`being provided to her, is inadequate to establish that either Kessler or Rajendran was acting on its
`
`behalf, sufficient
`
`to confer an agency relationship.
`
`Although neither Rajendran nor Kessler were actually employed by WMC, the jury made
`
`a determination that the circumstances
`
`surrounding Green's care and treatment at WMC were
`
`sufficient to find that she could have reasonably believed that these physicians were employees or
`
`10
`
`10 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`agents of WMC. Supporting the view that Green reasonably believed that, when she received
`
`treatment from Rajendran and Kessler, she was being treated by WMC employees,
`
`is Rajendran's
`
`trial testimony that: (I) when a patient comes to the hospital and needs a consult by an MFM,
`
`the MFM who attends that patient is the MFM on duty at that particular
`
`time (tr at 305);
`
`(2) she (Rajendran) was an employee ofWMC (tr at 109), which she changed several days
`
`later during cross examination;
`
`(3) she was uncertain whether Advanced Ob/Gyn was run by
`
`employees ofWMC (tr at 306); and (4) it was her understanding that Advanced Ob/Gyn was the
`
`faculty practice for WMC, and the teaching faculty for the hospital (tr at 305). Kessler was also
`
`unable to state with certainty the nature of his relationship with WMC, testifying that Advanced
`
`Ob/Gyn was "a group created just to be, I guess, a subgroup of the hospital," when he was asked
`
`whether he was aware in 2010, of the exact affiliation between the group and WMC (tr at 138).
`
`Moreover, Dr. Blanchette, whose pretrial deposition testimony was, in part, read into the record
`
`during trial, provided evidence about the close nature of the relationship between WMC and the
`
`individual defendants when he acknowledged that he was, simultaneously,
`
`the director of
`
`Ob/Gyn at WMC and the director of Advanced Ob/Gyn (if at J 052).
`
`In rendering its verdict,
`
`the jury might have also considered the facts that: (I) Green was
`
`brought to WMC by ambulance from Nyack Hospital; (2) Green was sent to WMC for the
`
`specialized prenatal services it could provide, and not for treatment by any particular physician,
`
`regatdless of whether Dr. Hostin told her that she was going to contact her "colleagues" at
`
`WMC; (3) when asked what her understanding was as to where the doctors who treated her were
`
`working, Green stated that she believed them to be working for WMC, because that was where
`
`she was being cared for; (4) Green was treated at WMC by physicians assigned to her on the
`
`II
`
`11 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`basis of their scheduled shifts/on call status at WMC, and not because she chose either of them,
`
`.
`
`had a prior relationship with either of them, or was a private patient of either of them; (5) prior to
`
`the evening of July 15,2010, Green had never met Kessler,
`
`the physician who discharged her
`
`twice without ever speaking with her or examining her; (6) it was WMC staff, and not Green,
`
`that set up the appointment
`
`for her to see Rajendran off-premises (an appointment
`
`she never kept
`
`because she delivered her son days bef?re the scheduled appointment);
`
`(7) the consent forms
`
`displaying the WMC letterhead, which were given to Green by WMC staff, state (hat Green was
`
`authorizing Rajendran and Kessler and "associates or assistants of his/her [the physician's)
`
`choice at Westchester Medical Center ('WMC')
`
`to perform" certain procedures on her, without
`
`any explanation regarding the relationship between the facility, the treaters and the medi'cal
`
`services being authorized and provided; and (8) neither Kessler, nor Rajendran, nor WMC
`
`offered proof that they made any effort to dispel any (mis)understanding Green might have had as
`
`to the nature of their professional
`
`relationship. Based on the evidence before the jury,
`
`the Court
`
`cannot find that the jury's finding of vicarious liability is against the weight of the evidence.
`
`As to that aspect of defendants' motion that seeks a mistrial on the grounds of plaintiff
`
`counsel's summation,
`
`the motion is denied. To the extent the defense's objections were
`
`overruled on the ground that plaintiff counsel's
`
`statements constituted fair comment on the
`
`evidence, which did not exceed the wide bounds oflatitude
`
`afforded to attorneys during
`
`summation,
`
`the Court stands by those rulings.
`
`Granted, however, are those aspects of defendants' motions that seek: (1) a hearing,
`
`pursuant to CPLR 4545, 4546 and Article 50-A, for the purpose of identifYing collateral sources
`
`and structuring a judgment;
`
`(2) an order declaring that any judgment entered reflect that portion
`
`12
`
`12 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`of the award that provides for future medical expenses shall be paid in accordance with Public
`
`Health La:-vss 2999-g through 2999-j.
`
`I
`Accordingly,
`
`it is
`
`ORDERED that defendants' motions are granted to the extent that:
`
`(lD unless plaintiff files a written stipulation consenting to a specific reduction of the
`
`I
`
`amount of damages for past and future pain and suffering to $2 million and $7 million
`
`respectively, within 30 days of entry of this decision and order, the verdict
`
`is set aside to the
`
`extent thlit a new trial shall be held on the question of damages;
`
`!
`
`(2) a hearing shall be conducted for the purpose of identifying collateral sources and
`
`structuring a judgment; and
`
`I(3:)with respect to any judgment entered in this action, the portion of the award that
`provides for future medical expenses must be paid in accordance with Public Health Law SS
`
`2999-g through 2999-j, and the motions are otherwise denied; and it is further
`i
`ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear in the Settlement Conference Part on
`
`Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 9:15 a.m., to schedule a date for a new trial on damages and a date for a
`
`collateral source hearing.
`
`, !
`
`This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
`
`Dated: White Plains, New York
`April 12,2019
`
`ENTER:
`
`HO
`
`, J.S.c.
`
`13
`
`13 of 14
`
`

`

`
`FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 04/15/2019 09:42 PMFILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2019 05:00 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 286NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/12/2019RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2019
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 51356/2014INDEX NO. 51356/2014
`
`Il
`
`,
`
`14
`
`14 of 14
`
`The Fitzgerald Law Firm, P.c.
`Martin Clearwater and Bell '
`Mauro Lilling Naparty
`Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket