FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2014

Transcription

1 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/14/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/14/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORI'i: COUNTY OF :KINGS RINATDRAY ~ X -against- Plaintifl{ s ), AMENDED SUMMONS STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; LEONID GORELH\! METROPOLITAN OB-GYN ASSOCIATES, PC. andjamesj. DUCEY,.Defendant( s ), TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: Index No /2011o -X Date ofpurchase:l/2~/l'.l< YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve ttpon plaintiffs attorney an answer 'to the complaint in this action within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York In case of your failure to answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. The basis of venue is plaintiff\s) residence 766 St. Johns Place, apt QB, Brooklyn, NY 11g 16 Dated: New York 1 NY Apdl 11, 014 Law Ofi'icesof SILV "RSTEIN & B, T by: ; Michae 1VI. B.<>t Attorneys for Plaii1tiff(s) :217 13toadway- Suite S06 New Yorh:, ID~ (2Hl)

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NE\rV YORK COUNTY OF KINGS x.rinatdray -against- Plaintiff{s), STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, LEONID GORELIK, METROPOLITAN OG-GYN ASSOCIA'rES, PC. and JAMES J. DUCEY Defendant( s ). x tollows: Index No /2014 AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, as and for her Verified Complaint, respectfully alleges as FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: ORDINARY NEGLlGENCE 1. ]"'his action falls within one m more of the exemptions set forth in CPLR 160~. 2. Upon information and belief at all times herein mentioned the defendant Hospitl'\l was a domestic corporation duly organized and exis~ing under the laws of the State ofnew York. s. Upon information and belief at all times herein mentioned the defendant Metropolitan was a professional corporation.

3 4. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the defendant Hospital owned, operated, managed, maintained and controlled a medical facility located at 1.t75 Seaview Avenue, Staten Island, NY. 6. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the defendant Metropolitan employed certain physicians including- defendants Gorelih: and Ducey. 6. Upon information and belie~ at all times herein mentioned, the defendant Gorelik was a, physician licensed to practice medicine in the State ofnew York, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology. 7. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the defendant Ducey was a physician licensed to practice medicjne in the State of New Yor~ specializing in obstetrics and gynecology~ as well as maternal fetal medicine. B. Upon information and beliet~ between approximately July 25, cdeiend. ants.'::w"hile a patient at Staten Island University Hospital. 9 ~~;R:~,,~~@l!~fl:h23E~:~~i: :~~ -. t2;;t.~ ~lt~:fi,f1.~~~- ~~~:: ;~~~~Bl~~~8R:E~~~t~,:-:lil@gl ig.entm:n.dtiag>t:h:l'acootda:n~ceowit'h~goo.d:.:,m:edk:al;:praetice~:., 10. Cas;:a:;:tesultaf:th.e~fQlMM?i.~?b:i!gJb~::Pl~jpti.f(w,~~- i:nj.}u:~q: "-'-~- --- : '"'-"'..:.;;.._,.,,... _._:,t, :..:.)... :.-J> II. A11 of the foregoing was caused by the negligence ofthe defendants, by their agents, servants and/or employees both for their own

4 actions and vicariously, in taking the patient for a c-section against her will; in causing, permitting and/or allowing an injury to the bladder during a c- section; in failing properly and/or timely to allow the patient to continue with a normal spontaneous vagir).al delivery instead of a c-section; in failing properly and/ or timely to induce and/ or accelerate contractions; in misreading and/or misinterpreting the fetal heart strips; in failing properly and/ or timely to evaluate and/ or examine the patient; in failing properly and/or time~y to summon the hospital's patient advocate; hi failing properly and/or timely to advise the patient of the existence and function ofthe hospital's patient advocate; in failing properly and/ or timely to '. ' summon and/ or consult the bioethic.s department of the hospital or of North Shore-LIJ; in failing properly and/ or timely failing to advise the patient of the existence and function of the ethics department at the hospital, and her right to obtain an opinion from them; in failing properly and/or timely to give the patient a copy of the patient's bill of rights; in failing properly and/or timely to repair the laceration; in failing properly and/ or timely to monitor the patient; in failing properly and/ or timely to make, keep and/ or review medical records; in failing to communicate properly and/ or timely with medical personnel and/ or the patient and/ or the patient's family; in failing to advise the patient and/or her family in a timely fashion that there was a hospital policy which would prevent them 3

5 fi om adhering to themother's wishes to delivery vaginally; in failing properly and/or timely to transfer the patient to another institution which would honor the patient's stated wishes to delivery vaginally; in failing properly and/or timely to provide the patient and/ or her family with a copy of the Patient's Bill of Rights; in failing properly and/ or timely to be aware of the Patie1i.t's Bill of Rights; in failing to call for a consultation or specialist or addit~onal medical personnel; in.<tiling to take appropriate tests; in failing to treat and care for the patient in accordance with the standards of care and treatment generally accepted in the community; in negligently failing to use approved methods in general used in the care and. treatment of the patient; in failing properly and/or timely to consider alternate methods of treatment; in negligent]y failing to use reasonable care and skill in the care and treatro,ent of the patient; in failing properly and/or ' timely to order and/ or obtain a biophysical profile; in violating a statute; in - using excessive and misdirected force; in failing properly and/ or timely to promulgate and/ or enforce and/ or publicize appropriate hospital protocols; in improperly substituting their judgment for that of the mother; in failing properly and/ or timely to request the permission of a court before overriding the mother's expressed wishes; in pressuring and threatening the mother in an effort to obtain her consent; in failing to use their best judgment in the care and treatment of the patient; in failing to take steps to 4

6 avoid this occurrence and were otherwise negligent. Plaintiff will also rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 12. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff was rendered sick? sore, lame and disabled and suffered painful injuries, as well as shock to her nervous system, suffered emotional and psychological injury 1 was required to-and did receive medical treatment for her injuries, was prevented from attending to her usual duties and activities, all to her damage in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits ofalllower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: MEDICAL NLUPRACTICE 1 S. Plaintiff repeats each allegation above as though fully set forth herein at length. 15. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff was damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 5

7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: LACK OF INF01U\1ED CONSENT 16. Plaintiff repeats each allegation above as though fully set forth herein at length. 17. Plaintiff was entitled to be advised of the risks, complications and alternatives to the medical care administered. 18: The defendants did not inform the patient of the risks and hazards of the procedure, trea.tment or non-treatment, or of the alternatives thereto,.. so that an informed consent was not given. I9. A reasonably prudent person in the patient's position would not have undergone the procedure or treatment or non-treatment if fully informed. 20. A lack of informed consent :was a proximate ca1:1se of the injuries or condition for which recovery is sought.!ll. As a result of the foreg oing, the plaintiffwas damaged in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: STATUTORY VIOLATION 6

8 22. Plaintiff repeats each allegation above as though fully set forth herein at length. 23. The Patient's Bill of Rights Statute, NY Public Health Law c (s)(e) et seq and 10 NYCRR et seq provide that a patient has a tight to refuse treatment. 24. On July 26, and/ or July 26, 2011 the patient expressed the wish to refuse a c-section. 26. The defendants were aware that the patient refused consent for a c-section. ~6. The patient was deemed by the defendants to have the eapacity to make decisions. 27. The defendants violated this statute by taking the patient to s1..1rgery over her express objections. 28.' As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff was damaged in-an amount which exceeds the j l1risdictionallimits of all lower courts which vvould otherwise have jurisdiction. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: PUNITIVE DAMAGES 29. Plaintiff repeats each allegation above as though fully set forth herein at length....,. I

9 ~.' so. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the defendants were or should have bceri aware of Public Health Law 2803-c et seq, which gave the patient the right to refi.tse treatment. S 1. The defendants consulted legal counsel before overriding the patient's refusal to consent to a c-section. 32. The defendants made a conscious decision to violate the law. 33. The defendants made a conscious decision to violate the patient's rights. 34. The defendants intentionally committed an illegal act. 35. The defendants' actions w~re partially or primarily based on pecuniary considerations..'36. The defendants' actions were wanton, willful, contumacious, reckless, and shocks the conscience, entitling the plaintiffs to punitive damages. W'HEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in the first, second, third, fuurth 1 and fifth causes of action in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all ~ower courts which would othenvise have jurisdiction together with punitive damages and the costs and disbursements of this action.

10 Dated: New York, NY Aprilll, 2014, Yours, etc., SILVERSTEIN & BAST Attorneys for Plai 1tift(s) IJ.rt by: Michael M. Bast.217 Broadway suite 306 New Y orl{, NY (212)

11 ATTORNEY'S VERIFICATION Michael M. Bast, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the courts of the State ofnew York, aware ofthe penalties of perjury, affirms the following pursuant to CPLR2I06: I am a partner in the Law Offices of Silverstein & Bast, the attorneys for the plaintiffherein. I have read the foregoing Amended Verified Complaint ~md know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge except as to the matters stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. The reason this verificatim'l is made by me and not by the plaintiff is because the plaintifris not in the Countj ~vhcre I maintain inyoflice. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows; by the records maintained in this oft1ce and my conversations with witnesses. Dated: New Y or~, New York April 11, 2014

12 SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF KINGS RINATDRAY Plaintiflts) -against- Index No /2014 STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, LEONIQ GORELIK, METROPOLITAN OB-GYN ASSOCIATES, PC. and JAMES J. DUCEY Defendant(s) AMENDED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CERTIFICATE OF MERIT The undersigned, attorney for Plaintiff, declares that, [XJ I have reviewed the facts of the case and have consulted with at least one physician who is lkensed to practice in the state or any other state and who I reasonably believe is knowledgeable in the relevant issnes involved in this action, and I have conclud_ed on the basis of such review and consultation that there is a reasonable basis for the commengement ofthi.s action. O I was unable to obtain the consultation required by CPLR Section SOH~-a (a)(l) because a limitation of time established by CPLR Article 2 would bar the action, and the certificate required by CPLR Section SOH~-a (a)(l) could not reasonably be obtained before.such time expired. The certificate required shall be filed within ninety days after service of the complaint. 0 I was unable to obtain the consultation required by CPLR S012-a (a)(l) because I have made three separate good faith attempts with three separate physicians or dentists to obtain such consultation and none ofthose contaded would agree to such a consultation. []I requested the records of the plaintiff's medical t reatment by the defendants and such reqords have not been produced; the plaintiff is not required to serve the certificate until ninety days after such records have been pt'oduced. 0 l intend to rdy solely on the doctrine of"res ispa loquitur" and for that reaaon am not filing the certificate required hy CPLR Section 301~-a (a). Da~--- Michael M. B<lst Silverstein & Bast 217 Broadway Suite 306 New York, NY 10007

13 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF \<.:\~ S I Q r,:y ~~ x 9<-."\(\o..-\- Qrr::.j Plaintiff( s )/Petitioner(s ), IndexNo.~Y ~against- O:>~~'D::,\.~ UA\'(~~ ~i~l Defendant( s )/Respondent( s) X NOTICE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRONIC FILING SUPREME COURT CASES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s) [defendant(s)frespondent(s)] in the case captioned above intends that this matt~r proceed as an elcctn.mically-filed case in the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System ("NYSCEF") in accordance with the procedures therefor, set forth in Uniform Rule b and described below. Under that Rule, filing and service of papers by electronic means cannot be made by a party nor can electronic service be made upon a party unless that party has c-onsented to use of the System for the (;ase in question. ~ach party served with this Notice must promptly file with the court and serve on all other parties either a consent o:t' a declimition of consent to electronic filing and service through NYSCEF for this case. (See Inslmction # 2 below.) General Information Electronic filing offers significant benefits for attorneys and litigants, permitting documents to be filed with the County Clerk and the court and served, between or among consenting parties, by posting the documents on the NYSCEF Website, which can be done at any time of the day or night on any day of the week. There is no fee to use the NYSCEF System, whether for filing, service, or consultation ofthe electronic docket, nor is there a charge to print documents from the docket Normal filing fees must be paid, but this can be done by credit or bank card on-line. For additional procedures and infonnation, see Uniform Rule b, any e-fil ing protocol that may have been promulgated by the court in question, and the NYSCEF Website at v. ww.nycourts.gov/efile.

14 Instructions I. Service of this Notice constitutes consent to e filing and a statement of intent by the undersigned to use the NYSCEF System in this case. When an action or proccedi ng is being commenced through the NYSCEF System, this Notice must accompany service of the initiating papers. 2. Each party served with this Notice may consent to e-filing either: (i) by filing with the court and serving on all parties of record a consent to e-filing, or (ii) if an a,uthorized e-filing user, by filing a consent electwnically in tho manner provided atthe NYSCEF site. Parties who do not wish to consent must file and serve a written declination of consent. If one party or some but "fewer than aji parties consent, NYSCEF may be used by and between or among consenting parties. 3. Each participating at~orney, unless already registered, or self~represented party must PROMPTLY create a NYSCEF account and obtain the c-onfidential Filing User Identification Number and Pusswor'd necessary to use-t]le system. To create a NYSCEF account, go to W'rvw.nycourts. go,l/efilc, click the Create an Account link, and follow the instructions.- 4. For additional informatioil about NYSCEF, see the User's Manual and Frequently Asked Questions on the Website, or contact the court in question or the NYSCEF Resource Center (at or efile@courts.state.ny.us). ~-- trncj'w.gj m. fu-o±: (Signature) ~~~) (oo~---~yu (Phone) (Name) ~id-\00~ I~Sr (Fax) CQD.'I~tt?" n -[6~+ (Firm) mbl::.+ a& Ave(.s-k ~ n~~w-mail) 2ili/J3 2