Legal Opinion
Mikus v. Rosell
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 16, 2008PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*179OPINION OF THE COURT
Joseph J. Maltese, J.
Medical specialists, who are presented with a radiologist’s written report of their patient’s radiograph (X ray), which contains a suggestion that the patient have a follow-up chest X ray within three months to reassess whether there is a pulmonary nodule on the patient’s lung are under a duty to advise the patient of such findings and suggestion for a follow-up X ray, even if the medical specialist is treating the patient for a different illness or condition.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for medical malpractice and wrongful…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Winegrad v. New York University Medical CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Grasso v. AngeramiNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Cox v. Kingsboro Medical GroupNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Holbrook v. United Hospital Medical CenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Plummer v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mikus v. RosellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009