![]() ![]() As a general principle, "t is established that disclosure provisions are to be liberally construed and a trial court is afforded broad discretion in managing disclosure" (Am. The Court is unpersuaded that plaintiffs' responses fail to satisfy the statutory purpose of a bill of particulars.ĭefendants' effort to obtain Barber's medical records from 2009 will be addressed next. Plaintiffs' responses amplified the allegations in the complaint and sufficiently set forth specific assertions as to each defendant. Plaintiffs set forth the same allegations asserted against Franzon with respect to defendant Advanced Women's Healthcare in Obstetrics & Gynecology, PLLC. As for defendant Dane Larsen, plaintiffs allege a failure to deliver the infant in a timely manner so as to prevent or significantly decrease the injuries sustained by CG. In their bill of particulars, plaintiffs state that the negligence and malpractice of defendant Olof Franzon included: failing to deliver CG in a timely manner so as to prevent or significantly decrease the injuries sustained by CG failing to properly monitor, assess and treat Barber's high risk pregnancy failing to obtain a consultation from a specialist in maternal fetal medicine or to refer Barber to such a specialist failing to admit Barber to the hospital for observation failing to adequately monitor Barber and her fetus failing to recognize that Barber's placenta was not functioning properly failing to order appropriate ultrasound testing and failing to schedule Barber for further evaluation before the morning of October 22, 2013. Plaintiffs' bill of particulars and first supplemental bill of particulars set forth separate allegations as to all three defendants. The relevant demands (numbers 4 and 5) by defendants requested particularization of each act constituting negligence (number 4) and medical malpractice (number 5). The bill of particulars "requires only a 'eneral statement of the acts or omissions constituting the negligence claimed'" (Rockefeller v Hwang, 106 AD2d 817, 818, quoting CPLR 3043 see Coughlin v Festin, 53 AD2d 800, 800-801 see also Felock v Albany Medical Center, 258 AD2d 772, 773 ). There is no distinction between a medical malpractice action or any other action for personal injuries. "'The responses to a demand for a bill must clearly detail the specific acts of negligence attributed to each defendant'" (Hayes v Kearney, 237 AD2d at 769, quoting Miccarelli v Fleiss, 219 AD2d 469, 470 ). Kearney, 237 AD2d 769, 769, quoting Twiddy v Standard Mar. "'The purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial'" (Hayes v. Defendants seek, pursuant to CPLR 3042, 31, an order, among other things, compelling plaintiffs to supplement their responses to demands 4 and 5 in the bill of particulars, and requiring Barber to provide a medical release regarding her obstetrical and gynecological records from her 2009 pregnancy, labor and delivery.Īddressing first the bill of particulars issue, the Court has recently set forth in a medical malpractice case with a similar dispute the applicable law, as follows: A conference was conducted with the Court and, when the issues remained unresolved, this motion by defendants ensued. The parties were unable to resolve a disagreement about the specificity of some of the responses in plaintiffs' bill of particulars as well as whether Barber must provide a release of medical information regarding a prior pregnancy and birth from 2009. This is a medical malpractice action in which plaintiffs Tionna Barber and Michael Grems allege that, during Barber's pregnancy, labor and delivery of plaintiff CG in October 2013, defendants engaged in various culpable conduct that resulted in CG suffering brain damage. The Sage Mansion, 16 Sage Estate, Albany, NY 12204 ![]() Maguire Cardona, P.C., Albany (Amanda Kuryluk of counsel) Powers of counsel)ģ9 N Pearl Street, Suite 6, Albany, NY 12207 Olor Franzon, M.D., Dane Larsen, M.D., and Advanced Women's Healthcare in Obstetrics & Gynecology, PLLC, Defendants. Tionna Barber and Michael Grems, Individually and as P/N/G of CG, an Infant, Plaintiffs, This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |