dr michael cross leaving hss dr michael cross leaving hss

Mon 7:00 am - 6:00 pm. Michael B. 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 further opined that had the surgery been performed in 2003, plaintiff's "final outcome would have been substantially improved and he would not have sustained such a severe degree of weakness and loss of function of his right upper extremity." Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P.TOM, J.P. (dissenting in part). for cervical spine cases. Nonmovants will suffer no prejudice. [FN3] "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. Financial Disclosures. The NPI number of this provider is 1235397043 and was assigned on May 2008. New York, NY, 10021. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. Everyone was professional. Plaintiff subsequently underwent the subject procedure at nonparty Mt. This was supported by Dr. Hecht's finding that there was no substantial neurological improvement in plaintiff's condition after his surgery at Mt. 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). 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]). 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. In April 2003, plaintiff again returned because he was experiencing increased weakness in his right upper arm. This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons 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. Feinman, J. In July, 2005, plaintiff saw orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Hecht of Mt. HSS Florida is a joint venture with Tenet Healthcare. Education VANDERBILT UNIV SCH OF MED, Medical School 2006 Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery OrthoIndy. 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. 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 best working with the best. On October 1, 2004, plaintiff first met with defendants Peter Frelinghuysen, M.D. Moreover, "because of a phenomenon called rebound myelopathy, an operation . Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. As a point of reference, the statutory 120-day maximum expired on December 22, 2011. DEPUTY CLERK Accordingly, the cross motion was properly denied, regardless of its merits. 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. Socy., 266 NY 71, 88 [1934]). 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. 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. Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. 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. Michael B. Diet & Weight Management He graduated from Vanderbilt University School Of Medicine in 2006. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. On the merits, discounting the supporting opinion of plaintiff's expert as conclusory, the majority finds that the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff suffered no injury as a result of HJD's February 2005 determination that surgical intervention was unwarranted. Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). Sinai. 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. Alumni News. 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. Our decision is not one on the merits of plaintiff's claim, and it is therefore premature to bemoan that we have opened a Pandora's box for surgeons. 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. Michael B. 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). 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. 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. Ten months after the surgery at Mt. HSS did not merely rely on the papers amassed by HJD, and as the motion court correctly noted, "[d]ifferences [in the factual record] necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]" and he was "a patient [at HJD] from only February 2005 to September 2005. He is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery and graduated from VANDERBILT UNIV SCH. 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." 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. 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. 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). 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." Hospital For Special Surgery. The motion court granted HJD's motion and denied the motion of HSS. Given the budgetary constraints presently confronted by the court system, this is hardly a fitting time to require trial of a matter devoid of apparent merit and otherwise amenable to disposition on motion, and the "genuine need" to be accommodated is that of the court to proceed expeditiously (id.). 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. Co., LLC (48 AD3d 337 [1st Dept 2008]), for the principle that there is an exception to Brill for cases where a late motion or cross motion is essentially duplicative of a timely motion. Request an Appointment 317.275.6191 (Fax: 317.884.5360) Meet Dr. Michael Cross Dr. Cross earned his bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. at 236, citing Andrea, Miceli, Brill, and Kihl). Burns v Gonzalez, 307 AD2d 863, 864-865 [1st Dept 2003]; Garrison v City of New York, 300 AD2d 14, 15 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). 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. [*7]. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. Find All Providers . carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea 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. 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. Contact; Help; Partners; Blog; Press; Product; . He was no longer working and was receiving social security disability benefits. McAloon & Friedman, New York (Gina Bernardi Di Folco of counsel), for respondent. charmeuse flutter sleeve a line bridesmaid dress September 10, 2022 September 10, 2022; best fpv camera and transmitter . Sinai, where he was first seen in the orthopedic clinic on April 21, 2005. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. 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 Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. Dr. Michael P. Ast, MD is a health care provider primarily located in Paramus, NJ, with another office in New York, NY. In March of 2002, plaintiff returned to HSS with complaints of pain in his lower back and left leg. ford edge liftgate reset; 2007 dodge grand caravan rear shocks; gotham point lottery results; singer serger heavy duty manual; spectacle hut tampines mall "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. Footnotes dr michael cross leaving hss. 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). 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. Dr. Michael Allen Cross 5053 Wooster Rd Cincinnati, OH 45226. Tue 7:00 am . . 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). Were the motions properly labeled they would not be judicially considered without an explanation for the delay. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]). ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). Auth. 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. Location in NY, NJ, CT and Florida. 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. Sinai where plaintiff later underwent a two stage revision cervical laminectomy with fusion. The result will be judicial economy, as well as lawyerly economy. 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. Your email address will not be published. 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. Plaintiff returned to HSS in June 2004 complaining of increasing right shoulder dysfunction and neck pain, and decreasing balance. Time Program Topic Faculty; Orthopaedic Summit. "[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. However, disregarding the untimeliness of HSS's motion, the court held that issues of fact precluded HSS from being granted summary judgment. ", 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. Nor is this court's recent holding in Levinson v Mollah (105 AD3d 644 [1st Dept 2013]) on point. He has 16 years of experience. 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. Featured Providers Near You Dr. Brian Anthony Cole, MD 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 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. by Peter Gordon. 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. 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. hilton houston address. 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 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. Copyright 2023 OrthoIndy. Health A-Z. 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 Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. 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. 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. 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. Since surgery carried serious risks and would likely not benefit the patient, conservative management with physical therapy and pain management would be more appropriate. The Jewish Hospital 4777 E Galbraith Rd Cincinnati, OH 45236. The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. In June 2004, plaintiff returned to HSS with continuing complaints of progressive right shoulder weakness, increased neck pain and decreased balance. Cross, MD. 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. 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]). 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). A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. But to reject the motion on that ground, under the facts herein, ignores the adverse consequences of imposing an overly restrictive rule, specifically, consequences that are especially adverse to the courts. 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. hurley joggers womens; sink clips not long enough; viewsonic vx3276 mhd reset; usaa dental insurance number; dr michael cross leaving hss. You're all set! Our focus is the rehabilitation of lives, delivered through evidenced-based therapy, with . 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. 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. Sinai for much of that time. Get free summaries of new New York Appellate Division, First Department opinions delivered to your inbox! Dr. Ast is affiliated with Hospital For Special Surgery and Hospital for Special Surgery. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. If you need help finding an appropriate doctor who takes your insurance, contact our HSSConnect at 877.606.1555. Plaintiff cites no precedent for imposing liability under these circumstances, and no comparable New York case has been located. Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. The courts will no longer have to address the kinds of questions we address here. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. The motion court properly dismissed the case as against HJD. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon, New York, New York. New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. 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. 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. Was seen ahead of scheduled appointment time. All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P. 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. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. Remote Second Opinion Dr. Michael A. The surgery consisted of a decompressive laminoplasty at C3-C7, bone graft reconstruction at C3-C6, and halo vest application. Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. "Thus, the rationale for the court's denial was articulated as being that the "cross motion" was untimely. 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 Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. Mystery solved: Extell is building a 30-story, 400,000-square-foot medical tower. 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." Thus, there were issues of fact raised "as to the advisability of surgery sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment on the merits.". It is a distorted analysis of my position. 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). Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Hospital 1 Medical Village Dr Edgewood, KY 41017. The cross movant may rely on the papers submitted with the main motion to support the relief sought. Cross appeals from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. The motion court granted defendant HJD's motion for summary judgment and denied HSS's motion for the same relief. The answer is yes. 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. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 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]). 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]).