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. Specialties: We provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy primarily in an in-home setting for the older adult community, and with recent addition of services at our skilled nursing facilities, outpatient and pediatric settings. HSS appealed from the denial of its "cross motion" and plaintiff cross-appealed from the grant of HJD's motion. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. by Peter Gordon. Accordingly, the cross motion was properly denied, regardless of its merits. 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. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER Opinion by Feinman, J. 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." 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). 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. Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." While defendants have not raised the question of whether the complaint is actionable, the issue should nevertheless be decided preliminarily. Particularly absent from the discourse is any consideration of the significant burden to be imposed on the court in presiding over a trial against HSS as opposed to proceeding summarily by way of motion. Dr. Michael B. Plaintiff subsequently underwent the subject procedure at nonparty Mt. The best working with the best. Likewise, there is no indication that plaintiff was prepared to undergo the procedure prior to October 2004, when he first consulted with Dr. Freylinghuysen. ), 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 dismissing plaintiff's claim of lack of informed consent, and otherwise denied the motion, and from the judgment of the same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, dismissing the complaint as against defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases. Significantly, Brill deals with the straightforward situation in which an initial summary judgment motion is filed well after a matter has been certified as ready for trial "in violation of legislative mandate" (id. Menu. The progress notes from June 25, 2005 indicate, in part, that he had "marked stenosis throughout spine," and "marked atrophy at both shoulder girdles." The notes also indicate that this doctor explained to plaintiff that the reason to do surgery would be to prevent worsening of his symptoms. He underwent a course of steroid injections. In Brill, the City of New York moved for summary judgment on the basis that it never had notice of the defect and therefore could not be liable for the plaintiff's personal injuries by law. In March of 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS with complaints of pain in his lower back and left leg. 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. 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. Here, at the time HSS submitted its untimely motion for summary judgment, the proceedings were already stayed by the concededly timely summary judgment motion brought by HJD. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. He graduated from Vanderbilt University School Of Medicine in 2006. A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. After surgery, he was pain-free but did not recover a full range of motion in his upper left arm. The motion court properly dismissed the case as against HJD. Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. 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). 212.606.1823 212.734.3833 (fax) www.hss.edu alumni@hss.edu. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon - Home | Facebook 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. Maysville Radiology Group 991 Medical Park Dr Maysville, KY 41056. A cross motion is "merely a motion by any party against the party who made the original motion, made returnable at the same time as the original motion" (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1; see CPLR 2215). New York, NY, 10021. 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). 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. Diet & Weight Management Cross, MD. Dr. Olsewski opined that based upon plaintiff's medical, diagnostic and surgical history, further cervical surgery would have been an "unjustifiable and extraordinarily risky and aggressive treatment option." Moreover, "because of a phenomenon called rebound myelopathy, an operation . The Mt. Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) President and CEO Louis A. Shapiro and Surgeon-in Chief and Medical Director Bryan T. Kelly, MD, today announced the appointment of Michael P. Ast, MD, hip and knee replacement surgeon and assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, as the new Vice-Chair of the HSS Innovation Institute and Chief Medical 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]). Cross, MD 523 E 72nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10021 Patient reviews All reviews have been submitted by patients after seeing the provider. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, New York Appellate Division, First Department, New York Appellate Division, First Department Decisions. The HSS "cross motion," which runs from page 842 to page 1002 of the record on appeal, is comprised of many items not contained in the HJD motion papers, not the least of which is additional medical records not submitted by HJD. at 653). The Jewish Hospital 4777 E Galbraith Rd Cincinnati, OH 45236. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Sinai. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Dr. Cross is one of the most pleasant medical providers that I have ever come in contact with. hilton houston address. charmeuse flutter sleeve a line bridesmaid dress September 10, 2022 September 10, 2022; best fpv camera and transmitter . Michael B. 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. At a follow-up visit in June 2003, he was told that he might not fully recover his right arm motor loss; he was "somewhat disappointed" but acknowledged that his 1994 surgery had a similar result as to his left side. The practice sought to be deterred in Brill is delay occasioned by the submission of a summary judgment motion on the eve of trial, thereby staying proceedings to the prejudice of litigants who have applied their resources in preparation for trial of the issues (Brill, 2 NY3d at 651). Opinion by Feinman, J. He received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and has been in practice between 11-20 years.. Visit Website. Likewise, the legislative memorandum in support of the amendment to CPLR 3212(a) is concerned with the disruption to court calendars by a motion interposed on the eve of trial (Sponsor's Mem, L. 1996, ch 492 reprinted in 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 2432-2433). Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. As to HSS, the court noted that the motion was clearly untimely, without explanation. Orthopaedic Research Society, Make an appointment with 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. [*2]Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), and Shoshana T. Bookson, New York, for respondent-appellant. ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall Strict and rigid application of Brill is even less understandable given the similarity of the grounds advanced by the respective hospitals in support of their summary judgment motions and the ground upon which disposition rests. The courts will no longer have to address the kinds of questions we address here. Dr. Michael M. Alexiades is an orthopedist in Lake Success, New York and is affiliated with multiple hospitals in the area, including Hospital for Special Surgery and New York-Presbyterian. 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). 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. Find All Providers . It wrote, Once this burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a question of fact requiring a trial (Kosson v Algaze, 84 NY2d 1019 [1995]). The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. On November 11, 2011, HJD moved for summary judgment, making its motion returnable on December 14, 2011. 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." We help patients restore the quality of life they deserve and desire. When the courts consistently "refus[e] to countenance" violation of statutory time frames, there will be fewer instances of untimely, improperly labeled motions, because "movants will develop a habit of compliance" with the statutory and court-ordered time frames, and late motions will include a good cause reason for the delay (id.). 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." 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). Your email address will not be published. In short, the HSS "cross motion" was more than a late "me too" motion and should not have been considered on its merits. Sinai, in October 2006, plaintiff returned to HJD's neurology clinic, reporting a lack of improvement in upper extremity strength, and some pain and numbness on the right arm and hand. Dr. Michael Alexiades, MD - Lake Success, NY | Orthopaedic Surgery MichaelMAlexiadesMD Orthopaedic Surgery Lake Success, NY Hip & Knee Reconstructive Surgery Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Cornell University-Weill Medical College Join to view full profile Office 2800 Marcus avenue Lake success, NY Lake Success, NY 11042 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. As most recently articulated in Gibbs: 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. However, the expert failed to support his assertion with an analysis of the multiple diagnostic tests and physical examinations conducted over the years. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Dr. Michael Allen Cross 5053 Wooster Rd Cincinnati, OH 45226. with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. Find Hospital for Special Surgery on the . Brill holds that to rein in these late motions, brought as late as shortly before trial, CPLR 3212(a) requires that motions for summary judgment must be brought within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue or the time established by the court; where a motion is untimely, the movant must show good cause for the delay, otherwise the late motion will not be addressed (see Isolabella v Sapir, 96 AD3d 427, 427 [1st Dept 2012]). 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 To the extent HSS's motion was directed at the complaint, as opposed to any cross claims by HJD, and was not made returnable the same day as the original motion, it was not a cross motion as defined in CPLR 2215. By making a cross motion, the party saves an extra day in court, and quite possibly the time and trouble of amassing fresh proof, if it happens that all or part of the evidentiary foundation on which the cross motion is based has already been produced for consideration (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2215:1, 2215:2). 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). However, disregarding the untimeliness of HSS's motion, the court held that issues of fact precluded HSS from being granted summary judgment. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. In opposition plaintiff's expert did not offer an opinion as to what specific injury plaintiff endured as a result of HJD's decision not to perform surgery and made only broad conjectures which were insufficient to defeat HJD's motion (see Foster-Sturrup v Long, 95 AD3d 726 [1st Dept 2012]; Callistro v Bebbington, 94 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 945 [2012]). While courts have deemed this mislabeling a "technical" defect which will be disregarded, particularly where the nonmovant does not object and it results in no prejudice to the nonmoving party (see Sheehan v Marshall, 9 AD3d 403, 404 [2d Dept 2004]), in this case the nature of nonmovant plaintiff's opposition is that there was prejudice because to the extent the court deems HSS's motion a cross motion, the Brill rule is ignored. Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . On March 24, 2016, Dr. Machler reported the results of a weeklong skin patch test, in which plaintiff was exposed to 121 allergens against the skin of his back. 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. It reasons that because Brill emphasizes the advantages of summary judgment, with which we of course agree, those advantages outweigh a consistent application of the statute. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. 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. Sinai, and the only change in his condition was numbness in his right arm and hand, likely due to the development of carpal tunnel syndrome. Dr. Michael A. The surgery consisted of a decompressive laminoplasty at C3-C7, bone graft reconstruction at C3-C6, and halo vest application. Dr. Michael B. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. 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. 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). 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. They work like a well-oiled machine. Cross is a radiation oncologist. The Best of the Best in Orthopedic Surgery. dr michael cross leaving hss. 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. Plaintiff undertook these programs through HJD's clinic, and was treated continuously until September of 2005. and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. Rather, it will be for a trial court and a jury to hear plaintiff's case, and should plaintiff prevail, then, assuming a timely appeal is taken and perfected, and only then, will we have occasion to consider the merits of the claim against HSS. The answer is yes. 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. According to plaintiff, he understood that surgery would be performed in late December, and he began obtaining the necessary medical clearances. Plaintiff returned to HSS in June 2004 complaining of increasing right shoulder dysfunction and neck pain, and decreasing balance. Here, the modestly late motion submitted by HSS sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion. 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. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Auto. Post-operatively, in February and April 2006, plaintiff indicated that he felt returning strength in his right arm although not his left, and a general "slow improvement." Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery OrthoIndy. Our focus is the rehabilitation of lives, delivered through evidenced-based therapy, with . HSS Florida is a joint venture with Tenet Healthcare. He then attended medical school at Vanderbilt University, graduating in 2006. In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). If you need help finding an appropriate doctor who takes your insurance, contact our HSSConnect at 877.606.1555. In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. Sinai. From the time of my first phone call to my most recent post-op consultation I knew I was in the hands of a pre-eminent surgical team. hurley joggers womens; sink clips not long enough; viewsonic vx3276 mhd reset; usaa dental insurance number; dr michael cross leaving hss. After residency, Dr. Cross completed his fellowship in Adult Reconstruction at Rush University Medical Center in 2013where he won the Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award. . This is also reflected in their individual motion papers. The evidence will be construed in the light most favorable to the one moved against (see Young v New York City Health & Hosps. Tom, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Freedman, Feinman, JJ. We therefore affirm the branch of the motion court's order which denied HSS summary judgment as untimely made without consideration of its merits. Skip to main content. According to the clinic notes, the doctors advised plaintiff that surgery would likely not result in the return of muscle function, but that there was "a slight chance" of improvement. A bitter divorce between a top New York City spine surgeon and his beauty-queen wife was quickly settled Monday after he filed court papers making tawdry accusations that she was moonlighting as. Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit in May 2007, claiming medical malpractice and failure to secure informed consent. Feinman, J. Although the system mainly runs in the . Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. 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. Rather, we enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as explained in Brill. Co., LLC, 48 AD3d 337, 337 [1st Dept 2008]; Alexander v Gordon, 95 AD3d 1245, 1246-1247 [2d Dept 2012]; Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591-592 [2d Dept 2007]). You're all set! Altschuler, in turn, relied on a pre-Brill decision, James v Jamie Towers Hous. The majority sustained the action as against HSS as a result of the hospital's submission of its summary judgment motion after the date set by the trial court pursuant to CPLR 3212(a). Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. Were the motions properly labeled they would not be judicially considered without an explanation for the delay. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. Plaintiff had a history of severe cervical disc disease going back to 1989. Nor is this court's recent holding in Levinson v Mollah (105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]) on point. 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 In Brill the Court of Appeals indicated that late-filed summary judgment motions are "another example of sloppy practice threatening our judicial system" (2 NY3d at 652, emphasis added), and pointed to its earlier decision, Kihl v Pfeffer (94 NY2d 118 [1999]), which affirmed dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiff failed to respond to a court order within the court-ordered time frame. By notice of cross motion dated January 10, 2012, HSS moved for summary judgment and dismissal, relying on HJD's expert's affidavit and that of defendant Girardi. DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT, DOWNLOADABLE RESOURCE: THE ULTIMATE GUIDE TO TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT, Russell Warren Basic Science Research Award There is nothing in the language of the statute to suggest this and it opens the door to abuse; once one movant has timely filed, any other party can argue that its motion, no matter when filed, should be addressed. ), entered July 16, 2012, affirmed, without costs. Co-Chief of the Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, and John Cavanaugh, PT, MEd, ATC, SCS, Clinical Supervisor, HSS Sports Rehabilitation and Performance Center, at the 2012 Summer Olympic. He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. 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. However, the City gave no explanation for why its motion was made close to a year after the trial calendar papers were filed. Finally, we note the dissent's concern that allowing this litigation to proceed based on plaintiff's particular theory of negligence could result in placing surgeons in an impossible situation either of performing a procedure that is deemed ill-advised and being subject to any liability for aggravation of a condition, or declining and being subject to liability for refusing to [*11]assume the risk that the surgery entails. All rights reserved. In James, the defendant moved for summary judgment and the codefendant served its cross motion late but before the original motion had been decided; James held that the untimely cross motion should have been considered as the original motion was still pending and both could have been decided together. In Levinson we held that there was no reason to address whether one of the "cross motions" was untimely because the moving defendants' timely motion had put plaintiff on notice that he needed to rebut the prima facie showing that he had not met the serious injury threshold; when the plaintiff in Levinson failed to do this, the complaint was correctly dismissed as to all codefendants. Ctr., 123 AD2d 843 [2d Dept 1986]). [*7]. Acknowledgment Hospital for Special Surgery gratefully thanks the Autumn Benefit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for . Cross is an orthopedist in Lafayette, Indiana. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. It is true that since Brill was decided, this Court has held, on many occasions, that an untimely but correctly labeled cross motion may be considered at least as to the issues that are the same in both it and the motion, without needing to show good cause (see e.g. According to Girardi, after viewing the films, in his opinion the severity of plaintiff's spinal disease and the low prospect of improvement did not warrant the risks of surgery. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea Some decisions also reason that because CPLR 3212(b) gives the court the power to search the record and grant summary judgment to any party without the necessity of a cross motion, the court may address an untimely cross motion at least as to the causes of action or issues that are the subject of the timely motion (see Filannino, 34 AD3d at 281, citing Dunham v Hilco Constr. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon, New York, New York. 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." Jean McDaniel Award, American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Sinai Hospital in December 2005, with no objective sign of improvement in physical function after over 10 months, according to his surgeon's report and tests taken at HJD's neurology clinic in October, 2006. The clinic notes of June 11, 2004 indicate that his "symptoms have progressed with increased right shoulder atrophy"; a new round of studies was scheduled. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and rev Michael B.
Gwen Ford Social Worker Regina Louise,
Hilton Colombo Annual Report 2020,
Marucci Am22 Vs Ap5,
Conservative Cities Near Tampa,
Articles D