GALDON v. RING (1999)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Frances L. GALDON and John Galdon, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. John H. RING, Jr., M.D., and John H. Ring, Jr., M.D., P.C., Defendants-Appellants.

Decided: May 07, 1999

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER and BALIO, JJ.

Sally Broad, Buffalo, for defendants-appellants. Joseph DeMarie, Buffalo, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Defendants contend that they are entitled to discover the identity of the treating physician of plaintiff Frances L. Galdon even though that physician will also serve as her expert witness in her medical malpractice trial against defendants. We disagree. Supreme Court properly permitted plaintiffs to serve redacted copies of medical records and reports omitting the name and address of that physician and the name of the hospital. The redaction was “an appropriate accommodation of the competing purposes of broad disclosure under CPLR 3121(b) and protection of the expert's identity under CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i)” (Wagner v. Kingston Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 616, 617, 582 N.Y.S.2d 214; see, Ryan v. Michelsen, 241 A.D.2d 434, 436, 660 N.Y.S.2d 435; see also, Napierski v. Finn, 229 A.D.2d 869, 870-871, 646 N.Y.S.2d 415).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network