dr michael cross leaving hss

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. Dr. Michael Cross, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Lafayette, Indiana. ", In February 2005, plaintiff began treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Disease (HJD). He attended Washington University in St. Louis for his undergraduate education, where he double majored in chemistry and mathematics/statistics and played varsity football. As to HSS, the court noted that the motion was clearly untimely, without explanation. Cross, MD. He underwent a course of steroid injections. Dr. Michael A. Dr. Michael A. Cross, MD | Radiation Oncologist | US News Doctors Thus, Brill cannot be said to reflect an intent to abandon the conspicuous advantages of summary judgment for the sake of procedural formalism. Co-Chief of the Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, and John Cavanaugh, PT, MEd, ATC, SCS, Clinical Supervisor, HSS Sports Rehabilitation and Performance Center, at the 2012 Summer Olympic. Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) President and CEO Louis A. Shapiro and Surgeon-in Chief and Medical Director Bryan T. Kelly, MD, today announced the appointment of Michael P. Ast, MD, hip and knee replacement surgeon and assistant professor of orthopaedic surgery, as the new Vice-Chair of the HSS Innovation Institute and Chief Medical He did not separate the claims plaintiff made against HJD and HSS, and did not address the opinions of HJD's expert regarding causation. Acknowledgment Hospital for Special Surgery gratefully thanks the Autumn Benefit Committee for ongoing support and major funding for . Michael B. Cross, MD - 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10605 with the kind of [*12]degeneration of the spinal cord [plaintiff] had, risk[ed] creating symptoms in the hands or feet. He submitted the affidavit of his medical expert, Michael J. Murphy, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Connecticut. According to the affidavit, Murphy reviewed the medical records and opined that surgery for plaintiff was "indicated as early as June 2003 when the diagnosis of cervical spondylitic myelopathy was made," and from that time until December 2005 when surgery was performed, plaintiff's neurological condition deteriorated. New York Presbyterian Hospital Internship, Preliminary Year, 2006 . The nurses and assistants were wonderful and were focused on managing my (intense) pain. Sinai, where he was first seen in the orthopedic clinic on April 21, 2005. Menu. With the advantage of hindsight, the doctor offers that "[w]hile further diagnostic studies were not inappropriate, they did not contribute any substantial information which would alter the indicated treatment." Unfairness to one party is not remedied by applying the statute to the detriment of another.[FN1]. The motion court granted defendant HJD's motion for summary judgment and denied HSS's motion for the same relief. They work like a well-oiled machine. Find a Doctor: By Name, Specialty, Location & Insurance You're all set! Dr. Cross is one of the most pleasant medical providers that I have ever come in contact with. Sinai Hospital in December 2005, with no objective sign of improvement in physical function after over 10 months, according to his surgeon's report and tests taken at HJD's neurology clinic in October, 2006. Hospital for Special Surgery/Cornell Medical Center Residency, Orthopaedic Surgery, 2007 - 2012. "The question remains whether HSS should remain a viable defendant in this case. The rule is that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking relief from a nonmoving party (Mango v Long Is. There is no suggestion that the narrow interpretation imposed upon the term "good cause" in Brill is meant to apply in circumstances, such as here, where a timely motion is followed by a corresponding motion that is not. The clinic notes indicated that plaintiff "need[ed] a decompression at C3-4, C4-5 and C6-7," that "probably" this would be done in an anterior approach, and that "surgery will be booked in the near future." The dissent would seemingly limit the reach 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. Plaintiff cites no precedent for imposing liability under these circumstances, and no comparable New York case has been located. . Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. Dr. Machler reported that plaintiff had mildly positive reactions to molybdenum, tobramycin, benzoic acid, and formaldehyde. While the Brill rule may have caused some practitioners and courts to wince at its bright line, by the time the motions at issue in this case were made, the Court of Appeals had already reiterated on more than one occasion, and in varying contexts, that it meant what it said (see Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74 [2010], citing Brill [dismissal after repeated failures to serve bill of particulars and noncompliance with enforcement order]; Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C. Finally, the majority adopts the trial court's conclusion that the expert's opinion is imprecise with respect to the nature of the alleged deterioration in plaintiff's condition and the extent to which each hospital bears responsibility. Under the circumstances presented by this matter, this view constitutes an unnecessarily rigid application of [*14]CPLR 3212(a), contravening the sound policy considerations underlying the decision and the intent expressed by the Legislature in amending the statute. Plaintiff continued to complain of cervical and lumbar discomfort and worsening of the pre-existing weakness in his right upper extremity. 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. ), 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, and from 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. 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. Dr. Michael B. Cross's office location Michael B. "[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. Therefore, the motion must be denied as untimely. On November 19, 2004, the clinic notes indicate that Frelinghuysen planned to review the patient films with Girardi and "we will plan for an anterior cervical decompression and fusion at a later date." Auth. 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. The Jewish Hospital 4777 E Galbraith Rd Cincinnati, OH 45236. 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. Cross, MD. While continuing at HJD, plaintiff also sought treatment at Mt. Altschuler, in turn, relied on a pre-Brill decision, James v Jamie Towers Hous. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals refused to address the motion on its merits, pursuant to CPLR 3212(a). The majority suggests that an independent basis for finding HSS to have been negligent might be found in the expert's opinion that "surgery for [plaintiff] was indicated as early as June 2003." I obviously highly recommend Dr. Cross and his team. The result will be judicial economy, as well as lawyerly economy. dr michael cross leaving hss Dr. Michael Cross, MD - Lafayette, IN | Orthopaedic Surgery In February 2005, plaintiff sought treatment at defendant New York University Medical Center Hospital for Joint Diseases (HJD). Visit Website. Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J. Find Providers by Specialty Find Providers by Procedure. All concur except Tom, J.P. and Freedman, J. who dissent in part in an Opinion by Tom, J.P. ), 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 He was no longer working and was receiving social security disability benefits. He received his medical degree from University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years. 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. HSS Orthopaedic Annual Report 2011-2012 - Issuu for cervical spine cases. Judgment, same court and Justice, entered August 20, 2012, affirmed, without costs. Ctr., 123 AD2d 843 [2d Dept 1986]). Tramways in le-de-France - Wikipedia 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]). His specialties include Orthopedic Surgeon. Can't say enough about how friendly the staff was at this facility. [*17]. dr michael cross leaving hss 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." It is up to the litigant to show the court why the rule should be flexible in the particular circumstances, or, in the words of the statute, that there is "good cause shown" for the delay. 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. Likewise, the legislative memorandum in support of the amendment to CPLR 3212(a) is concerned with the disruption to court calendars by a motion interposed on the eve of trial (Sponsor's Mem, L. 1996, ch 492 reprinted in 1996 McKinney's Session Laws of NY at 2432-2433). Michael B. Footnotes Tue 7:00 am . Dr. Murphy stated that the delays were a departure from the standards of good medical practice. Times, Locations & Directions for Dr. Michael Cross - WebMD 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. The problem in the case at bar is that HSS's motion, in addition to being untimely, is not a true cross motion. Here, the modestly late motion submitted by HSS sought relief on the same issues raised in HJD's timely motion. Of these, only molybdenum is a metal. Your email address will not be published. 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. Michael M. Alexiades, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Uniondale Call for an appointment 212.774.7557 Michael P. Ast, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Paramus Call for an appointment 201.599.8056 Jason L. Blevins, MD Hip and Knee Replacement HSS Main Campus, Westchester Call for an appointment 212.606.1248 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. at 653). This is clear by tracing Lapin's antecedents. 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. Co., 89 NY2d 425, 429 [1996]). Sinai where plaintiff later underwent a two stage revision cervical laminectomy with fusion. Dr. Michael Cross, MD: Orthopedic Surgeon - New York, NY - Medical News 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). Since trial of this matter was already stayed by HJD's timely motion for summary judgment at the time HSS submitted its marginally late summary judgment motion which raises the same dispositive issue as the timely motion, refusing to entertain the subsequent motion does nothing to avoid the delay of trial and waste of judicial resources, the primary purposes of Brill, by requiring trial of a virtually identical lawsuit ripe for summary disposition. Cross M.D - Orthopaedic Surgeon - Home | Facebook While defendants have not raised the question of whether the complaint is actionable, the issue should nevertheless be decided preliminarily. Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery OrthoIndy. ", 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. This was supported by Dr. Hecht's finding that there was no substantial neurological improvement in plaintiff's condition after his surgery at Mt. Thereafter, the motion court issued an order which provided that "[t]he time for the various defendants to move for summary judgment is extended through November 14, 2011." He graduated medical school from Vanderbilt University as a member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Medical Honor Society. Peter commented in his entry: I had an amazing experience with Dr. Cross and his team at the Hospital for Special Surgery. 523 e 72nd st attention: michael cross, m.d. Hospital for Special Surgery Florida | Orthopaedic Services | Fort new york, ny zip 10021-099 phone: (212) 774-2114 fax: (646) 797-8298 The provider's authorized official is Michael B Cross . New York, NY, 10021. carlson extra wide pet gate with lift handle prince of peace premium jasmine green tea Everyone was professional. 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." Get free summaries of new New York Appellate Division, First Department opinions delivered to your inbox! Dr. Michael B. (108 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2013]) After surgery, Dr. Hecht observed that he did not "see a substantial neurologic improvement on [his] objective testing, but the patient does feel subjectively like he is improving." We help patients restore the quality of life they deserve and desire. PDF Expert Opinion provided by Dr. Michael Cross As most recently articulated in Gibbs: RX Drugs & Medications Vitamins & Supplements. If you know this doctor and/or would like to share more about his good work please feel free to add a comment below. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431. At his next visit on November 12, 2004, a different doctor indicated in the clinic notes that Frelinghuysen and Girardi had recommended "what sounds like a two-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion," and that plaintiff would follow up in one week "to discuss surgery" [*3]with Frelinghuysen [FN1]. 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. 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. Dr. Ast is affiliated with Hospital For Special Surgery and Hospital for Special Surgery. Feinman, J. 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." Mystery solved: Extell is building a 30-story, 400,000-square-foot medical tower. It is a distorted analysis of my position. HSS Orthopedics Joins Forces With Stamford Health. Dr. Cross specializes in adult reconstructive surgery of the hip and knee, including primary and revision joint replacements. Because of the particular procedural posture of this matter, the order directing that it proceed to trial is ultimately futile, but application of the majority's rationale will unnecessarily burden both courts and litigants. Plaintiff had "significant C-5 weakness of the right upper extremity." Sinai, in October 2006, plaintiff returned to HJD's neurology clinic, reporting a lack of improvement in upper extremity strength, and some pain and numbness on the right arm and hand. Differences necessarily exist because [plaintiff] was a patient at HSS for an extended time before he came to [HJD]. HSS Doctors: Book an Appointment Online Today The Mt. 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. Was seen ahead of scheduled appointment time. In James, the defendant moved for summary judgment and the codefendant served its cross motion late but before the original motion had been decided; James held that the untimely cross motion should have been considered as the original motion was still pending and both could have been decided together. Plaintiff filed his note of issue on August 24, 2011. Required fields are marked *. 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]).

Missing Person Found Dead 2020, Articles D