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. . Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and rev Michael B. Type a specific doctor's name, body part, procedure or condition, then choose from the options. Contrary to the majority's assertion, I do not advocate limiting application "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." [FN3] 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. Cross, MD. Alumni News. Hospital for Special Surgery and the HSS Alumni Association gratefully thank the Autumn Beneit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for several medical education initiatives, including publication of . Cross is an assistant attending orthopedic surgeon at New York City-based Hospital for Special Surgery, as well as a clinical instructor of orthopedic surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College, also in New York City. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a orthopedic surgery specialist in New York, NY. HSS Orthopedics Joins Forces With Stamford Health. 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 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. Specialties. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Diseases & Conditions Procedures & Tests Symptoms & Signs. 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. 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. PDF Expert Opinion provided by Dr. Michael Cross charmeuse flutter sleeve a line bridesmaid dress September 10, 2022 September 10, 2022; best fpv camera and transmitter . Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Your email address will not be published. In sum, an outdated, pre-Brill interpretation of the amended CPLR 3212(a) continued to hold sway in Lapin. 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. Dr. Petrizzo testified that the overwhelming majority of patients with cervical myelopathy do not regain function after decompression surgery. Time Program Topic Faculty; Orthopaedic Summit. 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." I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. Neither the motion court nor the majority identifies any prejudice that was incurred by any party due to HSS's motion that might warrant requiring HSS to forfeit summary determination. 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. 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. 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]). Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . The days prior to my operation contain numerous phone calls making sure I knew where I was going and what I should expect. Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). 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. Menu. Jewish-Hillside Med. 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. 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. Furthermore, both the memorandum and Brill identify an adversarial party's lack of adequate time to prepare a response to the motion as the problem to be addressed. 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. 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 He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. Find Providers by Specialty Find Providers by Procedure. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, Accordingly, the cross motion was properly denied, regardless of its merits. He was found to have "significant" cervical stenosis and compression of his spinal cord, as well as cord signal change especially at C3-4 and C4-5. 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. at 653). 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. The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. Sinai. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. 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. Everyone was professional. 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]). at 652). 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]. They work like a well-oiled machine. The clinic notes also indicate that plaintiff told the examining physician that he had recently secured a job and was not interested "whatsoever" in immediate surgery; plaintiff disputes this and says he was not working at that time. 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." 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. Michael B Cross Mid-flexion instability (MFI) in total knee arthroplasty refers to a distinct clinical entity where the knee is stable at full extension and 90 of flexion, but unstable. Your email address will not be published. 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. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. On April 11, 2003, an MRI revealed a narrowing of the spinal canal and the neural foramen with disc protrusions. 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." Co., 95 AD3d 568, 560 [1st Dept 2012] [court's clerical error, [*10]explained through an affidavit of the paralegal, provided good cause for granting the motion seeking renewal of the motion for summary judgment]). RX Drugs & Medications Vitamins & Supplements. 35 Mayflower Avenue Unit B Stamford, CT 06906 Phone +1 (212) 987-OSET (6738) CONTACT US . Plaintiff returned to HSS in June 2004 complaining of increasing right shoulder dysfunction and neck pain, and decreasing balance. Moreover, while there is mention of a surgical option in the 2004 hospital records, the evidence does not show that evaluation of the attendant risks and benefits was undertaken until October 2004, culminating in the December 2004 decision that the associated risk was too great. Quite likely, the City's legal argument would have been dispositive. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004], citing Brill [denying untimely filed summary judgment motion because although the plaintiff argued she had meritorious case, no reasonable excuse was provided as to the motion's late filing]; see also Casas v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 105 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2013] [upholding order striking answer where the defendant offered no reasonable excuse for its failure to comply with discovery order and provide a meritorious defense]). Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. The Mt. Physical therapy, pain management and treatment in HJD's neurology, hand and shoulder clinics were recommended. NYC surgeon, beauty-queen wife settle divorce amid hooker allegations dr michael cross leaving hss. Michael B. Cross - OSET | Orthopaedic Summit Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Hospital 1 Medical Village Dr Edgewood, KY 41017. Thus, there were issues of fact raised "as to the advisability of surgery sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment on the merits.". 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). Mr. Michael Brian Cross M.d. Npi 1235397043 ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). As most recently articulated in Gibbs: Feinman, J. James, in turn, relied on Rosa v R.H. Macy Co. (272 AD2d 87 [1st Dept 2000]), where Macy moved for summary judgment and two other defendants untimely cross-moved against it for indemnity; the motion and another timely cross motion were still pending, and we held that the untimely cross motions should have been considered. Dr. Michael B. Cross, MD | Lafayette, IN | Orthopedist | US News Doctors 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. Michael B. In addition, he was voted by the faculty as the Distinguished Housestaff Award winner at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Plaintiff commenced this action against HSS and HJD claiming, in essence, that defendant hospitals were negligent in declining to timely perform the surgery he sought, particularly, that their delay caused him to sustain injury that otherwise might have been avoided. The majority concludes that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any injury sustained as a result of the delay in surgery and upholds the dismissal of the complaint as against HJD on this ground a result in which I wholly concur. 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. But most importantly, the dissent's approach is in derogation of CPLR 3212(a). This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. All rights reserved. Here, HJD's submission of its moving papers a mere three days before the final date set by the trial court contravenes the spirit of Brill by depriving HSS of an adequate opportunity to timely file its own application for similar relief because, at such point in time, HSS is presumed to have been devoting its resources to preparation for trial (Brill, 2 NY2d at 651). Sinai for much of that time. 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 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 In that regard, the majority's disposition is antithetical, directing a party to try a case under circumstances to which Brill is inapposite because trial has been delayed not by an eleventh-hour summary judgment motion, but by one that is altogether timely. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Hip, knee surgeons with NYC's best value outcomes at HSS 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. See times, locations, directions & contact information for Dr. Michael Cross in Indianapolis, IN. After review of the MRI, he determined that no further surgery for the cervical spine was indicated and that there should be no lumbar spine surgery "at this time." Dr. Michael B. HSS Alumni Association Newsletter: Fall 2009 In 1994, when plaintiff was 53 years old, he underwent spinal surgery at defendant Hospital for Special Surgery, to address multilevel cervical stenosis with myelopathy and radiculopathy, which, over the course of five years, had led to progressive weakness in his left shoulder and upper extremities. Michael B. Altschuler, in turn, relied on a pre-Brill decision, James v Jamie Towers Hous. Jorge O. Galante, MD Fellow Research Award 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. Lapin relied on Altschuler v Gramatan Mgt., Inc. (27 AD3d 304 [1st Dept 2006]), which held it proper to consider the untimely "cross motion," in particular because it was "largely based" on the same arguments raised in the timely motion for summary judgment, and the same findings would apply for both it and the timely motion. All Sessions by Michael B. 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). Dr. Michael Cross, MD | Lawrenceburg, IN | Radiation Oncology | Vitals Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. 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. 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. He was no longer working and was receiving social security disability benefits. Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery :: 2013 :: New York Appellate Orthopaedic Research Society, Make an appointment with 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. The best that surgery could do was stop the myelopathy, but there was risk of permanent paralysis or death, "well beyond the standard for such risks for cervical spine cases." Cross, MD . HSS Names Michael P. Ast, MD, Vice-Chair and Chief Medical Innovation This statement concedes that HSS properly conducted further studies; that the results failed to afford any further diagnostic insight that was not predictable, and neither the tests themselves nor the time expended in conducting them are rendered improper as a result of that outcome. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons The motion court granted defendant HJD's motion for summary judgment and denied HSS's motion for the same relief. 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. "Before this matter may proceed to trial, it will be necessary to decide, as a matter of law, whether a doctor has a duty to perform a surgical procedure requested by a patient despite, in the professional opinion of the doctor, the high risk and absence of benefit that such surgery entails. In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well" (16 NY3d at 81). Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. 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).
Ingham County Accident Reports,
Cotchford Farm Haunted,
Articles D