Dr. Cross completed his residency at HSS, where he was awarded the Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award and the Jean McDaniel Award, which is given to the Chief Resident who best demonstrates leadership, professionalism and ethics in the care of patients. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. Parker v LIJMC-Satellite Dialysis Facility, 92 AD3d 740, 741-742 [2d Dept 2012] [failure to receive significant outstanding discovery before the deadline for making motion for summary judgment provides good cause for allowing a late-filed motion for summary judgment]; see also Kase v H.E.E. PDF Alumni Relections Across the Years Here, the modestly late motion submitted by HSS sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving party must produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary judgment in his or her favor (GTF Mktg., Inc. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 NY2d 965, 967 [1985]). Dr. Michael Cross, MD | Indianapolis, IN | Orthopedic Surgery | Vitals Dr. Cross joined HSS as a clinician-scientist and currently has over 55 publications and has received numerous research awards at local, regional, and national levels, including the 2013 Frank Stinchfield Award from the Hip Society and the 2013 OREF/ORS Travel Award in Translational Research from the Orthopaedic Research Society. There is a shorter minimum notice requirement, three or seven days, as compared with the minimum eight-day notice requirement in CPLR 2214(b). Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. I respectfully disagree with the majority's holding and would dismiss plaintiff's claim of medical malpractice against defendants Hospital for Special Surgery and its physicians (collectively, HSS). Tue 7:00 am . Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. HSS appealed from the denial of its "cross motion" and plaintiff cross-appealed from the grant of HJD's motion. Brill draws a bright line based on the two elements of CPLR 3212(a): the statutorily imposed or court-imposed deadlines for filing summary judgment motions, and the showing of good cause by a late movant in order for its motion to be considered. at 652). Thus, the primary objective of Brill to discourage dilatory conduct is not implicated (see Fofana v 41 W. 34th St., LLC, 71 AD3d 445, 448 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]). ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]) addressed the "recurring scenario" of litigants filing late summary judgment motions, in effect "ignor[ing] statutory law, disrupt[ing] trial calendars, and undermin[ing] the goals of orderliness and efficiency in state court practice" (2 NY3d at 650). Dr. Cross is one of the most pleasant medical providers that I have ever come in contact with. The motion by HSS was submitted shortly after the end of the holiday season on January 10, 2012, and the respective motions were finally decided by the motion court on July 16, 2012, over seven months later. He was no longer working and was receiving social security disability benefits. Dr. Michael Cross, MD - Lafayette, IN | Orthopaedic Surgery This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, New York Appellate Division, First Department, New York Appellate Division, First Department Decisions. The undesirable practice sought to be prevented by revision of CPLR 3212(a) is the waste of resources expended in preparation for trial as the result of a belated summary judgment motion staying the proceedings. In July 2005, he was examined by an orthopedic surgeon who determined that plaintiff needed surgery to prevent his condition from worsening, not in order to regain function. He underwent a course of steroid injections. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. If the issue had been compression, surgery would have been performed to prevent further progression, but due to the degeneration of the spinal cord, decompressive laminectomies would have done little or nothing to address plaintiff's upper extremity issues. The court then went on to comment in dicta that if its merits were examined, summary dismissal should be denied as there are substantial questions of You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The surgery consisted of a decompressive laminoplasty at C3-C7, bone graft reconstruction at C3-C6, and halo vest application. The clinic notes indicated that plaintiff "need[ed] a decompression at C3-4, C4-5 and C6-7," that "probably" this would be done in an anterior approach, and that "surgery will be booked in the near future." Our focus is the rehabilitation of lives, delivered through evidenced-based therapy, with . Logically, if plaintiff did not sustain injury as a result of HJD's February 2005 decision, it follows that he did not sustain injury as a result of the similar December 2004 determination, approximately 2 months earlier, by HSS physicians to forego surgery, especially in light of plaintiff's long history of [*13]cervical disc disease. In particular, the records suggest that HSS believed surgery was appropriate and helpful in as early as 2003, surgery is repeatedly mentioned in the records of 2004, and plaintiff believed that surgery had been scheduled. The Mt. NYC surgeon, beauty-queen wife settle divorce amid hooker allegations "Thus, the rationale for the court's denial was articulated as being that the "cross motion" was untimely. Orthopaedic Research Society, Make an appointment with Thereafter, the motion court issued an order which provided that "[t]he time for the various defendants to move for summary judgment is extended through November 14, 2011." Under the circumstances presented, the motion court was within its discretion to review HSS's motion on the merits (see Alexander, 95 AD3d at 1247; Grande, 39 AD3d at 591-529). The dissent's approach of judging a motion's merits without consideration of why it was untimely, can only lead to uncertainty and additional litigation as motions clearly barred by Brill become arguably permissible because one of the litigants perceives the motion to have merit and perceives no prejudice to the other side. Copyright 2023 OrthoIndy. The evidence will be construed in the light most favorable to the one moved against (see Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Brill reiterates Kihl's statement that, " [i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity'" (2 NY3d at 652-653, quoting Kihl at 123). Unlike Brill, the circumstances presented by the instant matter do not furnish a compelling reason to depart from prior authority affording a court discretion to entertain a marginally late filing where the party's application has merit and no prejudice has been demonstrated by an adversary (see e.g. Maysville Radiology Group 991 Medical Park Dr Maysville, KY 41056. Here, however, because HSS and HJD have different treatment histories with plaintiff, HJD's timely motion did not clearly put plaintiff on notice of the need to gather evidence in opposition to the arguments ultimately proffered by the HSS defendants. . Moreover, the exception discussed in Filannino allowing the courts to consider proper but untimely cross motions, at least as to issues shared with the original motion, addresses the dissent's concern that a cross-moving party might be caused to file its motion late because it had insufficient time before the deadline occurred. Plaintiff undertook these programs through HJD's clinic, and was treated continuously until September of 2005. Dr. Michael B. Cross's office location Michael B. He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. But most importantly, the dissent's approach is in derogation of CPLR 3212(a). On November 19, 2004, the clinic notes indicate that Frelinghuysen planned to review the patient films with Girardi and "we will plan for an anterior cervical decompression and fusion at a later date." Dr. Frelinghuysen testified that, in or about December 2004, after he reviewed plaintiff's film with Dr. Frederico Girardi, another HSS orthopaedic surgeon, he decided that surgery was not an option for treating plaintiff because it would expose plaintiff to myriad risks, and not improve his condition. HJD met its burden of showing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, proffering evidence that plaintiff was not caused to suffer any injury between February 2005 when HJD found that surgery was not indicated, and April 2005 when he first consulted with Mt. The gravamen of his claim is that HSS and HJD failed to timely perform surgery upon him, leaving him with neurological and muscular damage that would not have occurred had the surgery been performed earlier. Nevertheless, the court observed that plaintiff's expert Dr. Michael J. Murphy clearly opined that the surgery was necessary, not so much to improve plaintiffs's condition, but to prevent it from worsening. Diseases & Conditions Procedures & Tests Symptoms & Signs. Find a Doctor: By Name, Specialty, Location & Insurance Find a Doctor At HSS, the world's best musculoskeletal specialists work together to provide the best care for you. Dr. Michael Cross, MD, Orthopedic Surgery | Indianapolis, IN | WebMD Dr. Michael B. Cross, MD | Michael B. Cross, MD, New York, NY Particularly, the majority holds that the summary judgment motion interposed by HSS was untimely and beyond the motion court's power to entertain pursuant to Brill. The dissent would seemingly limit the reach of Brill to those actions where a party files a motion for summary judgment long after the deadline for dispositive motions and the matter is on the trial calendar. In short, the HSS "cross motion" was more than a late "me too" motion and should not have been considered on its merits. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. Decided on December 24, 2013 2013 NY Slip Op 08548 Your email address will not be published. The plaintiff's expert's opinion is equally conclusory whether it is applied to the asserted negligence of either [*18]facility, and if it does not suffice to sustain the action as against HJD, it does not suffice to sustain the action as against HSS. Thus, his opinion is an ambiguous statement of causation, amounting to bare conjecture, which is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726, 728-729 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408, 410-411 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). Ten months after the surgery at Mt. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. Of course, it must be pointed out that the cross-movant would have good cause for its late motion in that situation, and the cross motion would be evaluated on its merits (see e.g. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his. Nor is this court's recent holding in Levinson v Mollah (105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]) on point. [*2]Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and Shoshana T. Bookson, New York, for respondent-appellant. Michael B. Cross, MD - 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10605 The notes also indicate that this doctor explained to plaintiff that the reason to do surgery would be to prevent worsening of his symptoms. Sinai orthopedic surgeon observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving.". The value of enforcing the terms of the statute as written is that attorneys will make sure their motions are timely filed or that there is a good reason for the lateness. First of all, under the authority of Brill [2 NY3d 648 (2004)], the cross[]motion was clearly untimely without any explanation, and counsel is simply wrong when he argues that the cross[]motion raises the same issues as the motion timely made by [HJD]. Footnote 1:Girardi testified that the notation that he and Frelinghuysen had recommended any particular surgery was "incorrect." All Sessions by Michael B. In March of 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS with complaints of pain in his lower back and left leg. Even if we were to find that the Court of Appeals intended for an exception to be carved out of Brill for incorrectly labeled "me too cross motions," that is, motions relying on the arguments and evidence of the originally filed motions, to the extent HSS's motion against a nonmoving party can be properly considered such a motion, the motion court correctly found that it is not merely a duplication of HJD's timely motion. As to HJD, the court found that, "without any doubt, [its] moving papers, primarily through the thorough opinions expressed by [its expert], [made] out a prima facie case for the relief sought." The motion court also correctly denied summary judgment to HSS because its motion was untimely made without any explanation for its untimeliness, let alone good cause (see CPLR 3212[a]). DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT, DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT, Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award Dr. Michael Ast, MD - New York, NY | Orthopaedic Surgery - Doximity FIND A DOCTOR. We are in agreement that this action was properly dismissed as against HJD; however, a procedural bar is perceived by the majority to prevent this Court from summarily disposing of the action as against HSS. The majority concludes that summary disposition is precluded by the Court of Appeals' decision in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), without reference to the judicial policy espoused in the opinion. As to HSS, the court clearly held that because the cross motion was filed impermissibly [*5]late with no reason offered for the lateness, it should be denied. In the opinion of HJD's expert, surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option," as no surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's "significant" neurological deficits that had existed for many years. The courts will no longer have to address the kinds of questions we address here. Dr. Michael Cross, MD: Orthopedic Surgeon - New York, NY - Medical News "[FN4] There are sufficient discrepancies in the record and in the experts' opinions that raise questions of fact regarding HSS's course of treatment beginning in 2004, if not earlier. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. OrthoIndy Hospital is physician-owned and operated. The doctor also noted that plaintiff did not objectively regain any strength or function after having the surgery at Mt. MedicineNet. Cross, MD. The court noted that Dr. Girardi at HSS "explained clearly that he believed that the cord was so damaged that the surgery would not have improved anything" and Dr. Hecht, who performed the surgery, acknowledged that plaintiff did not have any objective improvement. Dr. Cross is board-certified with several association memberships, including the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the Orthopaedic Research Society, and the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. No surgery would have been able to reverse plaintiff's neurological deficits, "which were significant by the time he presented at HJD, and had already existed for many years." If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. The rule is that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking relief from a nonmoving party (Mango v Long Is. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. The argument that HSS's motion should be considered on the merits because it "sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion," ignores the distinction in the CPLR between motions and cross motions and perpetuates an increasingly played end run around the Court of Appeals' bright line rule in Brill. He accepts multiple insurance plans, including Medicare. MichaelPaulAstMDFAAOS Orthopaedic Surgery New York, NY Hip & Knee Reconstructive Surgery Assistant Professor, Orthopaedic Surgery Chief Medical Innovation Officer Vice Chair, HSS Innovation Institute Hospital for Special Surgery Join to view full profile Office 541 East 71st Street 6th Floor New York, NY 10021 Phone+1 201-599-8056 Only after the extent of a duty has been established as a matter of law may a jury resolve as a question of fact whether a particular defendant has breached that duty with respect to a particular plaintiff" (citing Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]). for cervical spine cases. Footnotes In the case at bar, HSS relies on Lapin v Atlantic Realty Apts. Moreover, "because of a phenomenon called rebound myelopathy, an operation . Dr. Michael B. Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. Brill emphasizes that summary judgment is advantageous to the parties by "avoiding needless litigation cost and delay" and constitutes "a great benefit both to the parties and to the overburdened New York State trial courts" since it "may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. Dr. Michael Brian Cross, MD Orthopedic Surgery Leave a review Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd, Indianapolis, IN, 46278 12 other locations (317) 802-2000 Overview Locations OVERVIEW. McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. However, for reasons bereft of any sound basis in law or judicial policy, it refuses, primarily on procedural grounds, to apply the same reasoning to dismiss the complaint as against HSS. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion in New York, NY dr michael cross leaving hss. In sum, an outdated, pre-Brill interpretation of the amended CPLR 3212(a) continued to hold sway in Lapin. new york, ny zip 10021-099 phone: (212) 774-2114 fax: (646) 797-8298 The provider's authorized official is Michael B Cross . HSS Orthopaedic Annual Report 2011-2012 - Issuu Dr. Michael B. Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. Michael B. Alumni News. It wrote, OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. You can explore additional available newsletters here. The course adopted by plaintiff of locating a medical team possessing the requisite skills at a hospital equipped with the appropriate facilities represents a seemingly optimal outcome which, as a matter of policy, should not be compromised by the threat of litigation. [Habiterra Assocs. Plaintiff subsequently underwent the subject procedure at nonparty Mt. Sinai. Co. (294 AD2d 268, 272 [1st Dept 2002], affd 99 NY2d 639 [2003]). Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion 541 East 71st Street New York, NY 10021 Physicians at this location Specialties Family Medicine Orthopedic Spine Surgery Orthopedic Surgery. Overall rating 4.92 Wait time 3.69 Bedside manner 4.85 Your trust is our top concern, so providers can't pay to alter or remove reviews. Michael B. He further opined that there was no identifiable injury sustained in the four-month period between plaintiff's first visit at HJD and when he first went to Mt. Sinai for much of that time. Both seek dismissal of the complaint on the identical ground that it was not a departure from good and accepted medical practice to forego surgery in favor of a conservative treatment plan, i.e., based on the severity of plaintiff's existing spinal disease and the low prospect of improving his condition, the decision not to subject plaintiff to the risk of quadriplegia or death was a sound medical decision. However, it is a well-established rule of statutory construction that a court should avoid any interpretation that leads to absurd and unintended consequences (see Matter of Friedman-Kien v City of New York, 92 AD2d 827, 828-829 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 923 [1984], citing Matter of Chatlos v McGoldrick, 302 NY 380, 387-388 [1951]; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, 92, 145, 147). According to Dr. Olsewski, the best case scenario "was to stop further progression of the cervical myelopathy"; the worst could have resulted in permanent paralysis or death, risks "well beyond the standard. Michael B. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY Skip to main content. Both HSS and HJD established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, proffering evidence that plaintiff did not sustain any injury resulting from the respective institutions' independent decisions to recommend against further surgery. He met with another HSS doctor on October 22, 2004, who wrote that the plan was to have plaintiff return in November to see Frelinghuysen "for booking of his anterior disc fusion surgery." Plaintiff continued to complain of cervical and lumbar discomfort and worsening of the pre-existing weakness in his right upper extremity. An MRI taken of his right shoulder in May 2005 showed "severe atrophy" of certain muscles and "mild atrophy" of other muscles, "likely due to the patient's cervical myelomalacia." New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons ], 5 NY3d 514 [2005], citing Brill [dismissal after ongoing failure to comply with discovery orders]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. He received his medical degree from University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years. Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . In addressing this problem, the Court of Appeals noted that "the Legislature struck a balance, setting an outside limit on the time for filing summary judgment motions, but allowing the courts latitude to set an alternative limit or to consider untimely motions to accommodate genuine need" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery OrthoIndy. With the advantage of hindsight, the doctor offers that "[w]hile further diagnostic studies were not inappropriate, they did not contribute any substantial information which would alter the indicated treatment." To the extent that good cause is even material under these circumstances, it is the sheer impossibility of preparing a dispositive motion during the remaining time established by the court for its submission. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea Finally, the majority adopts the trial court's conclusion that the expert's opinion is imprecise with respect to the nature of the alleged deterioration in plaintiff's condition and the extent to which each hospital bears responsibility. Dr. Michael A. The dissent considers our application of Brill in this instance to be "rote," and that our interpretation is antithetical to that decision's policy considerations of preventing eve-of-trial summary judgment motions. Socy., 266 NY 71, 88 [1934]). Hip, knee surgeons with NYC's best value outcomes at HSS Newsroom Contacts Tracy Hickenbottom Assistant Vice President, Public Relations & Social Media mediarelations@hss.edu (212) 606-1197 Noelle Carnevale Associate Director, Public Relations mediarelations@hss.edu (212) 606-1197 Rachael Rennich Senior Manager, Public Relations World-Renowned Experts Focused on You As leaders in the field, the doctors at HSS Florida have years of experience in caring for people with all types of orthopedic conditions, from persistent knee pain to shoulder injuries. Indeed, in our view, the dissent wrongly interprets the statute by claiming that the "good cause shown" prong is not always a part of the CPLR 3212(a) analysis. Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). HSS argued to the motion court, as it does to this Court, that its motion should be considered on the merits because it merely presents the same arguments made by HJD. Plaintiff had a history of severe cervical disc disease going back to 1989. Drugs & Supplements. [*17]. hilton houston address. At [HJD] he was a patient from only February 2005 to September 2005, and he was also a patient at Mt. After residency, Dr. Cross completed a fellowship in Adult Reconstruction at Rush University Medical Center, where he won the Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award. Dr. Michael Ast, MD | Paramus, NJ | Orthopedic Surgeon | Vitals The authorized official title is Physician and has the following contact phone number (212) 774-2114. My stay at the Hotel for Special Surgery was flawless. The le-de-France tramways ( French: Tramways d'le-de-France) is a network of modern tram lines in the le-de-France region of France. Michael B. Cross - OSET | Orthopaedic Summit In other words, Brill calls on the courts to lead by enforcing the words of the statute, rather than let attorney practice slowly eat away at the integrity of our judicial system. When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is issue finding rather than issue determination (see Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]).

Robert Garcia Boxer Net Worth, Is Connie Hopper Of The Hoppers Still Alive, Katlyn Carlson Measurements, Shoe Show Return Policy Without Receipt, Kerry Von Erich Death Photos, Articles D