![]() ![]() At that time, the plaintiff reported, inter alia, a two-year history of pain with bloating and burning, mainly localized in the upper abdomen. ![]() Parikh testified at his deposition that he first saw the plaintiff on April 24, 2008. Parikh prescribed medication to help the plaintiff relax, and advised him to see a psychiatrist. According to Mackauer, Parikh dismissed the plaintiff's pain as psychological and refused to physically examine him. She testified that the plaintiff complained that the pain in his stomach was "worse than it had ever been" and was "very different" from the pain he had experienced before. The plaintiff's wife, Donna Mackauer (hereinafter Mackauer), testified at her deposition that she accompanied the plaintiff to the April 21, 2009, follow-up visit, at which time he "was very gray and sweating," had a fever, could barely stand, and was "very emotional" because of his pain. ![]() On or about June 2, 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for medical malpractice against Parikh and his employer, the defendant Digestive Liver Disease Center, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical care by perforating the plaintiff's appendix during the April 13, 2009, colonoscopy, and then failing to diagnose him with a perforated appendix during the April 21, 2009, follow-up visit.Īt his deposition, the plaintiff testified that he presented to Parikh on April 21, 2009, complaining of severe pain, but Parikh would not allow the plaintiff to lie down during the visit and suggested that he seek psychiatric help. Two days later, on April 23, 2009, the plaintiff presented to the emergency room at Staten Island University Hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute perforated appendicitis. Parikh referred the plaintiff to his primary care physician for a psychiatric evaluation. Thereafter, on April 21, 2009, the plaintiff presented to Parikh in a highly emotional state, complaining of nonspecific abdominal pain. Divyang Parikh, a gastroenterologist, performed a colonoscopy on the plaintiff. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated November 5, 2014, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Lichtenstein, P.C., Mineola, NY (Joseph L. Vaslas Lepowsky Hauss & Danke, LLP, Staten Island, NY (Neil F. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Īppellate Division, Second Judicial Departmentĭivyang Parikh, etc., et al., appellants. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |