All Sessions by Michael B. Twelve lines are currently operational (counting Lines T3a and T3b as separate lines), with extensions and additional lines in both construction and planning stages. Time Program Topic Faculty; Orthopaedic Summit. 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. 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 . He graduated from Vanderbilt University School Of Medicine in 2006. 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]. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. In June 2004, plaintiff returned to HSS with continuing complaints of progressive right shoulder weakness, increased neck pain and decreased balance. He graduated medical school from Vanderbilt University as a member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society. 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. In October, 2006, plaintiff returned to HJD again complaining of continued lack of strength in upper extremity and numbness and pain in the right arm and hand. Michael B. He received his medical degree from University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years. 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. 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). Cross, MD. ), 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 We therefore affirm the branch of the motion court's order which denied HSS summary judgment as untimely made without consideration of its merits. 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). "Thus, the rationale for the court's denial was articulated as being that the "cross motion" was untimely. 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. Sinai. 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. Dr. Murphy conclusively states that plaintiff's condition progressively deteriorated during the period of treatment at defendant hospitals, yet he points to no objective evidence supporting this statement, despite the fact that the record contains numerous diagnostic tests over that period of time. The motion court granted HJD's motion and denied the motion of HSS. 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. 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). Your email address will not be published. According to the patient notes, the examining physician found severe upper extremity atrophy. Thus, plaintiff failed to rebut HJD's prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Michael B. 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. 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]). 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. 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. Plaintiff did not return to HSS for slightly over one year after this visit. at 236, citing Andrea, Miceli, Brill, and Kihl). 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. 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. 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. Murphy stated that the delays were a departure from the standards of good medical practice. Michael B. 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. 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. He accepts multiple insurance plans, including Medicare. 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. Everyone was professional. 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. Dr. Michael Cross, MD works in New York, NY as an Orthopedic Surgery Specialist and has 16 years experience. Dr. Anthony Petrizzo of HJD examined plaintiff on February 11, 2005, finding severe upper extremity atrophy, with deltoid strength at 1/5, and 2/5 strength to the biceps. Required fields are marked *. 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. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee,. Skip to main content. Decided on December 24, 2013 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. New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]). 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. Michael Cross is a provider established in Indianapolis, Indiana and his medical specialization is Orthopaedic Surgery with more than 17 years of experience. Tom, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Freedman, Feinman, JJ. Footnote 3: In Cadichon v Facelle (18 NY3d 230 [2011]), the Court reversed a "ministerial" dismissal based on the failure to timely file the note of issue because the trial court did not provide notice to the parties or issue a formal order; the decision notes that the record showed that neither set of parties acted "with expediency in moving the case forward," and that deadlines must not be disregarded (id. Although raised in the context of a purported "cross motion," resolution of this appeal requires us to once again revisit the issue of untimely summary judgment motions. Dr. Michael A. As the Court of Appeals has admonished, " No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided, and no judge can write freely if every sentence is to be taken as a rule of law separate from its association'" (Matter of Staber v Fidler, 65 NY2d 529, 535 [1985], quoting Dougherty v Equitable Life Assur. 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. Dr. Cross earned his bachelors degree from Washington University in St. Louis in 2002. Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. 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. 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. ), 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, should be affirmed, without costs; 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, should be affirmed, without costs. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a orthopedic surgery specialist in New York, NY. [FN3] Footnote 1:Girardi testified that the notation that he and Frelinghuysen had recommended any particular surgery was "incorrect." In July, 2005, plaintiff saw orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Hecht of Mt. 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. The NPI number of this provider is 1235397043 and was assigned on May 2008. In that context, where "[t]he violation is clear," the "good cause" required to obtain relief from the statutory time limit is "a satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness" in filing the motion (id. Co. (294 AD2d 268, 272 [1st Dept 2002], affd 99 NY2d 639 [2003]). 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. On November 11, 2011, HJD moved for summary judgment, making its motion returnable on December 14, 2011. 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. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Cross, MD. Accordingly, the order should be modified to the extent of granting defendant HSS's motion for summary judgment. 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 It contends that in the interest of judicial economy we should not depart from "prior authority" that affords the court discretion to entertain a "marginally late filing" when there is merit to the application and no prejudice has been demonstrated, citing Burns v Gonzalez (307 AD2d 863 [1st Dept 2003]), and Garrison v City of New York (300 AD2d 14 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). 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 rule is that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking relief from a nonmoving party (Mango v Long Is. 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. Saint Elizabeth Edgewood Hospital 1 Medical Village Dr Edgewood, KY 41017. Was seen ahead of scheduled appointment time. 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). HJD timely moved for summary judgment on November 11, 2011. 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. He underwent a course of steroid injections. In sum, an outdated, pre-Brill interpretation of the amended CPLR 3212(a) continued to hold sway in Lapin. 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. 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). I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. On April 11, 2003, an MRI revealed a narrowing of the spinal canal and the neural foramen with disc protrusions. 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. Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. HSS Orthopedics Joins Forces With Stamford Health. 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 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. The doctor also noted that plaintiff's "only option" might be a future shoulder arthrodesis "to allow him to have a more functional lifestyle." This was supported by Dr. Hecht's finding that there was no substantial neurological improvement in plaintiff's condition after his surgery at Mt. Accordingly, the cross motion was properly denied, regardless of its merits. 35 Mayflower Avenue Unit B Stamford, CT 06906 Phone +1 (212) 987-OSET (6738) CONTACT US . Mon 7:00 am - 6:00 pm. 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 response, plaintiff's expert merely averred that if the subject cervical revision surgery had been performed earlier, plaintiff's ultimate 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. 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. Footnotes [*7]. 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]). Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. 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. 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. Quite likely, the City's legal argument would have been dispositive. ", 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. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon | New York NY 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. Thus, there were issues of fact raised "as to the advisability of surgery sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment on the merits.". Find doctor Michael Brian Cross Orthopedic Surgeon physician in White Plains, NY. 211 likes. 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. Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]). 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). After surgery, he was pain-free but did not recover a full range of motion in his upper left arm. 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." 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]). We are concerned that the respect for court orders and statutory mandates and the authoritative voice of the Court of Appeals are undermined each time an untimely motion is considered simply by labeling it a "cross motion" notwithstanding the absence of a reasonable explanation for its untimeliness. Corp., 91 NY2d 291, 296 [1998]; Bielat v Montrose, 272 AD2d 251, 251 [1st Dept 2000]). 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. and Federico Pablo Girardi, M.D., both orthopedic surgeons at HSS. Education VANDERBILT UNIV SCH OF MED, Medical School 2006 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. 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. I am returning on Oct 9, 2020, for my left knee and am actually looking forward to it. 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. The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. hurley joggers womens; sink clips not long enough; viewsonic vx3276 mhd reset; usaa dental insurance number; dr michael cross leaving hss. The Best of the Best in Orthopedic Surgery. As most recently articulated in Gibbs: 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). This surgeon was submitted to G.O.S. 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." It wrote, 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). at 652). Plaintiff's MRI was reviewed and it was determined that surgery was not indicated. We do not hold that when a summary judgment motion is filed past the deadline, the court must automatically reject it. While defendants have not raised the question of whether the complaint is actionable, the issue should nevertheless be decided preliminarily. The Hospital for Special Surgery a pre-eminent facility for musculoskeletal health and orthopedics and a New . 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]). Michael B. Cross is an orthopedist in Lafayette, Indiana. dr michael cross leaving hss. A cross motion offers several advantages to the movant. 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. Oice of Alumni Afairs 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 212.606.1057 . Electronic tests revealed that plaintiff's cervical condition was significantly the same as in 2005 which supported Dr. Hecht's post surgical findings. 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 Plaintiff filed his note of issue on August 24, 2011. Dr. Michael B. In opposition, Murphy's opinions were "somewhat conclusory."
