dr michael cross leaving hss

However, disregarding the untimeliness of HSS's motion, the court held that issues of fact precluded HSS from being granted summary judgment. In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). Dr. Michael Cross, MD, Orthopedic Surgery Specialist - New York, NY HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today 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. The Jewish Hospital 4777 E Galbraith Rd Cincinnati, OH 45236. DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT, DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT, Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award Health insurers that provide access to Hospital for Special Surgery (click the insurance company name for more details) Aetna Affinity by Molina Healthcare Blue Cross Blue Shield - Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield - Horizon Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. Cross, MD. He then attended medical school at Vanderbilt University, graduating in 2006. Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit in May 2007, claiming medical malpractice and failure to secure informed consent. 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. Decided on December 24, 2013 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. Palomo v 175th St. Realty Corp., 101 AD3d 579 [1st Dept 2012]; Conklin v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., 49 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2008]; Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281-282 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 862 [2007]; Osario v BRF Constr. dr michael cross leaving hss Appellate Division, First Department To lend legal support to plaintiff's theory would place the surgeon in an impossible situation perform a procedure that is deemed to be ill-advised, taking into consideration the individual physician's experience and the available hospital facilities, and be subject to liability for any aggravation of the patient's condition or decline to operate and face liability for refusing to assume the substantial risk that surgery entails. Everyone was professional. To the contrary, the compelling interest is judicial economy, which militates in favor of summary disposition of even an untimely motion made in response to one timely filed (see Burns, 307 AD2d at 864), [*16]especially if that "summary judgment motion may resolve the entire case" (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). However, the City gave no explanation for why its motion was made close to a year after the trial calendar papers were filed. Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. by Peter Gordon. It was also Dr. Girardi's opinion that, given plaintiff's extensive spinal disease and the prospect of low improvement, the risk of surgery including quadriplegia or even death, was clearly not warranted. He was no longer working and was receiving social security disability benefits. 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. Michael B. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY Dr. Petrizzo testified that the overwhelming majority of patients with cervical myelopathy do not regain function after decompression surgery. Plaintiff continued to complain of cervical and lumbar discomfort and worsening of the pre-existing weakness in his right upper extremity. As defendant Hospital for Special Surgery (together with codefendants Frelinghuysen and Girardi, HSS) concedes, its cross motion was untimely, and it did not allege any good cause for its delay. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. According to the patient notes, the examining physician found severe upper extremity atrophy. ), entered July 16, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the summary judgment motion of defendants Hospital for Special Surgery, Peter Frelinghuysen, and Federico Pablo Girardi (collectively HSS) only to the extent of Its motion papers included an affidavit of a medical expert who discussed plaintiff's medical history as seen in the records. Mr. Michael Brian Cross M.d. Npi 1235397043 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. The Hospital for Special Surgery a pre-eminent facility for musculoskeletal health and orthopedics and a New . Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. It wrote, The majority suggests that an independent basis for finding HSS to have been negligent might be found in the expert's opinion that "surgery for [plaintiff] was indicated as early as June 2003." OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. There is no suggestion that the narrow interpretation imposed upon the term "good cause" in Brill is meant to apply in circumstances, such as here, where a timely motion is followed by a corresponding motion that is not. fact, barring summary resolution. 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). Jewish-Hillside Med. "The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Electrical studies performed on October 26, 2006 revealed no significant change from those done in 2005 although there was evidence of fibrotic changes; [*4]the studies showed the presence of moderate right and mild left carpal tunnel syndrome. Location in NY, NJ, CT and Florida. Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. Dr. Michael Cross, MD, Orthopedic Surgery | Indianapolis, IN | WebMD I simply note that Brill is inapposite to the facts of this matter and that both the decision and the statute it construes apply only to a party whose motion has the effect of staying and delaying trial. As to the procedural issue raised, the majority has devised a solution to a problem recognized neither by the Legislature nor the Court of Appeals. 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. Plaintiff was a patient a much longer time at HSS than at HJD, surgery was positively discussed by the HSS defendants, and thus there are factual differences between the two defendants' treatments. Dr. Michael B. Dr. Michael Cross' Practice at the HSS Pavilion in New York, NY Dr. Michael Cross, MD: Orthopedic Surgeon - New York, NY - Medical News After surgery, Dr. Hecht observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving." [*2]Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and Shoshana T. Bookson, New York, for respondent-appellant. Tel: (212) 606-1000. Lapin is one in a line of cases holding that an untimely cross motion may be considered on its merits when it and the timely motion address essentially the same issues. 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. Dr. Cross completed his internship at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center in 2007 and his residency at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York in 2012 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. In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. ", As to the delay causing any injury, the doctor stated that there was no identifiable injury caused by any alleged delay during the four month period between when plaintiff was first seen at HJD and when he first went to Mt. On January 10, 2012, [*6]well after the deadline for dispositive motions had passed, HSS "cross-moved" for summary judgment without providing any explanation whatsoever for its delay. The motion by HJD was submitted on November 11, 2011, three days before the deadline of November 14, 2011 imposed by the motion court under CPLR 3212(a). 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. However, bending the rule results in the practical elimination of the "good cause shown" aspect of CPLR 3212(a), and the clear intent of Brill. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. He received his medical degree from University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years. He has 16 years of experience. Plaintiff subsequently underwent the subject procedure at nonparty Mt. In opposing the "cross motion," the plaintiff argued that it was untimely, and, secondarily, that it was devoid of merit. 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. In December 1994, plaintiff had surgery at HSS to address multilevel cervical stenosis with myelopathy and radiculopathy, a condition that existed for a period of time which caused plaintiff continuous weakness of his upper extremities including left shoulder. The answer is yes. "It is well settled that the duty owed by one member of society to another is a legal issue for the courts' (Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 187 [1987]). About eight years later, in March 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS complaining of lower back pain and severe left leg pain; he was treated with a course of steroid injections. Dr. Michael Brian Cross has 13 locations Orthoindy Northwest 8450 Northwest Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46278 (317) 802-2000 ACCEPTING NEW PATIENTS Michael Cross MD 535 E 70th St Fl 7 Ste 710 New York, NY 10021 (212) 774-2114 Dr. Michael Cross' Practice 523 E 72nd St Fl 7 New York, NY 10021 (212) 774-2127 Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Michael B. Cross, MD - 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10605 Accordingly, the order should be modified to the extent of granting defendant HSS's motion for summary judgment. hilton houston address. 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]. In addition, the motion court correctly dismissed the second cause of action alleging lack of informed consent as plaintiff's papers did not address this claim. Rote application of the summary judgment provision, which permits the court to "set a date after which no such motion may be made," leads to the result advocated by the majority strict rejection of the motion as untimely without taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, relegating the moving party to litigating its position at trial.

Revelry Bridesmaid Dress Resale, Blackstone Tactical Opportunities Acquires, Is Aaron O'connell Related To Patrick Swayze, How To Treat Scours In Humans, Articles D