Spinosa v. Weinstein
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Eiber, J.
One of the primary issues presented on this appeal is whether the podiatrist who acted as surgical assistant in a series of operations performed on the plaintiff Ann Spinosa’s feet was obligated to obtain her informed consent before participating in the procedures undertaken. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the surgical assistant was not so obligated, and, therefore, that the Supreme Court properly granted his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him. We further conclude that the Supreme Court…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Schloendorff v. Society of the New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Walker v. SheldonNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
- Harnish v. Children's Hospital Medical CenterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Fiorentino v. WengerNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
- Fogal v. Genesee HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Schmidt v. BishopDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Zarin v. Reid & PriestAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose L. L. P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Howard v. University of Medicine & DentistrySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
- Hardaway Management Co. v. SoutherlandKentucky Supreme Court · 1998
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.