From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wagner v. Kingston Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1992
182 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 6, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The plaintiff was examined by a doctor on February 7, 1991, in connection with the instant medical malpractice action, and subsequently served a copy of this doctor's report on the defendants. However, the name and address of the doctor were redacted based on the plaintiff's claim that the doctor was his medical expert who would testify at the trial. The respondents moved to preclude the plaintiff from offering evidence of his physical condition unless an unredacted copy of the report was served upon them. The court granted the respondents' motion. We reverse.

The plaintiff does not dispute that he was required pursuant to CPLR 3121 (b) to serve a copy of the report on the respondents, even though it was prepared by his medical expert (see, Hoenig v Westphal, 52 N.Y.2d 605; Ciriello v Virgues, 156 A.D.2d 417 ; Pierson v Yourish, 122 A.D.2d 202). However, the plaintiff contends that pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) he was entitled to withhold the identity of the doctor. CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i), which governs the disclosure of information from expert witnesses, includes a provision which permits a party to withhold the identity of a medical expert. This provision was enacted because of the concern that medical experts might be discouraged from testifying by their colleagues (see, Jasopersaud v Rho, 169 A.D.2d 184). Permitting a plaintiff to serve a copy of the report with his or her expert's name and address redacted is 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) (cf., Jasopersaud v Rho, supra; Zuck v Sierp, 169 A.D.2d 717; Bonelli v New York Hosp., 144 Misc.2d 22; Rubenstein v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Center, 139 Misc.2d 349). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly granted the respondents' motion. Eiber, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wagner v. Kingston Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1992
182 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Wagner v. Kingston Hospital

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER WAGNER, Appellant, v. KINGSTON HOSPITAL, Defendant, and MARY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 6, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 214

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Alleyne

The policy underlying the legislature's enactment of a statute that permitted litigants in medical, dental,…

Soave v. Aides at Home

In wrongful death actions, however, this is obviously no longer the case. The Second Department's recent…