Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BRENDA READING AND JAMES KRANZ, PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. ANTHONY FABIANO, M.D. AND KALEIDA HEALTH, DOING BUSINESS AS MILLARD FILLMORE GATES HOSPITAL, DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Brenda Reading (plaintiff) during a surgical procedure for the removal of a tumor on her pituitary gland. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Anthony Fabiano, M.D. was negligent in the application of a skin preparation solution that came into contact with plaintiff's eyes during the surgery, resulting in, inter alia, damage to her corneas. By the order in appeal No. 2, Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for leave to reargue their prior motion to compel certain discovery and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior decision directing the disclosure of redacted portions of certain medical records. The court attached as “Exhibit A” to the order in appeal No. 2 an “amended memorandum decision and order” deleting the phrase “nor is there any claim for loss of enjoyment of life” from the original order. We dismiss the appeal from the “amended memorandum decision and order” in appeal No. 3, which did not effect a “material or substantial change” (Matter of Kolasz v. Levitt, 63 AD3d 777, 779).
We affirm the order in appeal No. 2. “In bringing the action, plaintiff waived the physician/patient privilege only with respect to the physical and mental conditions affirmatively placed in controversy” (Mayer v. Cusyck, 284 A.D.2d 937, 938). Indeed, that waiver “ ‘does not permit wholesale discovery of information regarding [plaintiff's] physical and mental condition’ “ (Carter v. Fantauzzo, 256 A.D.2d 1189, 1190). Contrary to defendants' contention, the allegations in the bill of particulars that plaintiff sustained “serious and permanent injuries, including: toxic keratitis; bilateral corneal abrasions; severe bilateral photophobia; impaired vision; decrease in vision; need for corneal transplants; loss of enjoyment of life; disability; and pain and suffering” “do not constitute such ‘broad allegations of injury’ that they place plaintiff's entire medical history in controversy” (Tabone v. Lee, 59 AD3d 1021, 1022; cf. Geraci v National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 255 A.D.2d 945, 946). The court properly conducted an in camera review to redact irrelevant information (see generally Nichter v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 93 AD3d 1337, 1338), and properly limited disclosure to the “conditions affirmatively placed in controversy” (Mayer, 284 A.D.2d at 938).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 14–00172
Decided: March 27, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)