Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schrumpf v. Meinhard

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


December 2, 2008

MARLANE G. SCHRUMPF, APPELLANT,
v.
BRUCE P. MEINHARD, ETC., RESPONDENT.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated January 14, 2008, which granted the defendant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER and EDWARD D. CARNI, JJ.

(Index No. 33713/07)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On January 20, 2000, the plaintiff allegedly was injured in a motor vehicle accident. She commenced a personal injury action against the driver of the other vehicle and his employer. In that action, she was required to appear for an independent medical examination at the offices of Bruce P. Meinhard, a medical doctor. The examination was conducted, and Meinhard issued a report concluding, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not disabled. The plaintiff subsequently commenced the instant action against Meinhard seeking, among other things, to recover damages for medical malpractice.

The Supreme Court properly granted Meinhard's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint. "No action to recover damages for medical malpractice arises absent a physician-patient relationship" (Savarese v Allstate Ins. Co., 287 AD2d 492, 493). In this regard, "[a] physician-patient relationship does not exist where... the examination is conducted solely for the purpose of rendering an evaluation as a litigation support service for an insurer" (Bazakos v Lewis, 56 AD3d 15; see Savarese v Allstate Ins. Co., 287 AD2d at 493).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic by our determination.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, MILLER and CARNI, JJ., concur.

20081202

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.