Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Respondent was an inmate in the custody of the State Department of Corrections and Correctional Services (DOCCS). In 2010, Respondent undertook a month-long hunger strike, contending that he had ceased eating in order to secure transfer to another DOCCS facility and to bring attention to certain claims of mistreatment. After Respondent had lost 11.6 percent of his body weight, DOCCS commenced this proceeding requesting a court order permitting medical personnel to insert a nasogastric tube and take other reasonable steps necessary to provide hydration and nutrition to Respondent. Supreme Court granted DOCCS' motion. Respondent subsequently resumed eating solid food but nevertheless appealed. The Appellate Division concluded the case was moot except for the issue of whether the State violated Respondent's rights by securing the force-feeding order. On that issue, the Appellate Division ruled in favor of DOCCS, concluding that the force-feeding order did not violate Respondent's right to refuse medical treatment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Respondent's rights were not violated by the judicial order permitting the State to feed him by nasogastric tube after his health devolved to the point that his condition became life-threatening. View "Bezio v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

In 2007, Plaintiff's father (Decedent) collapsed and at a health club owned and operated by Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc. (Bally). Ambulance personnel administered shocks to Decedent with an automatic external defibrillator (AED), but he never revived. Plaintiff, as executor of Decedent's estate, brought a wrongful death suit against Bally, alleging that Bally employees negligently failed to use an available AED, or failed to use it within sufficient time, to save Decedent's life. Bally primarily argued that it was immune from liability under the State's Good Samaritan Law. Supreme Court denied Bally's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding (1) N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 627-a imposes an affirmative duty of care upon health clubs so as to give rise to a cognizable cause of action in negligence for failure to operate an available AED; and (2) the complaint stated a cause of action based upon common law negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 627-a does not create an affirmative duty for health clubs to use the AEDs they are required to have available; but (2) Plaintiff pleaded a viable cause of action at common law. View "Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc." on Justia Law

The Commission is constitutionally charged with the oversight of all correctional facilities in the state. At issue was the enforceability of a subpoena deuces tecum issued by the Commission commanding Elmhurst, a health care facility operated by HHC, to produce its records respecting its care and treatment of a specified individual, who, at the time of his pre-mortem hospitalization at the Elmhurst facility, was a correctional inmate in the custody of the city. In the proceedings resulting in this appeal, the Commission's subpoena was quashed upon the ground that it sought material shielded from disclosure by the physician-patient privilege. The court held that this was error that the records sought were not properly withheld from the Commission by reason of the asserted privilege and that the subpoena should be enforced. View "Matter of New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v New York State Commn. of Correction" on Justia Law

Petitioners provide protection and advocacy services to individuals with developmental disabilities. After receiving a complaint regarding the discharge practices of respondent, petitioners requested access to the clinical records of all individuals residing at two respondent facilities to investigate whether they were being denied the opportunity to live in less restrictive settings. Relying on Mental Hygiene Law 45.09(b) and 33.13(c)(4), petitioners asserted that they were entitled to unrestricted access to the clinical records. Answering a certified question, the court concluded that section 45.09(b) and section 33.13(c)(4) must be read in accord with federal law and that actively-involved family members could possess sufficient decision-making authority to qualify as legal representatives under the pertinent regime. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion and, as so modified, affirmed. View "Matter of Albany Law School v New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities" on Justia Law

Plaintiff represented psychiatrists who treated patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid and defendants were responsible for administering Medicaid in New York and for implementing and enforcing medicaid reimbursement rates. At issue was whether the 2006 amendment to the Social Services law found in a budget bill implementing a coinsurance enhancement for the benefit of psychiatrists who treat patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid was intended to be permanent or whether the amendment was intended only to provide a limited one-year enhancement. The court concluded that the Legislature only intended to provide for a one-time coinsurance enhancement, limited to the 2006-2007 fiscal year. View "New York State Psychiatric Assn., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Five days after Charmaine D. was admitted to the hospital, petitioner, the director of the psychiatry department at that hospital, applied to Supreme Court for an order that she be retained for 30 days. Charmaine moved to dismiss the retention proceeding, arguing, among other things, that her original commitment was defective because the emergency room psychiatrist at issue was not a proper applicant under Mental Hygiene Law 9.27. The court held that an emergency room psychiatrist was "supervising the treatment of or treating" a patient within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law 9.27(b)(11), and so had standing to seek an involuntary commitment of the patient pursuant to section 9.27. The psychiatrist was not required to resort to the emergency procedure contained in Mental Hygiene Law 9.39. View "Matter of Rueda v Charmaine D." on Justia Law

Respondent brought this action against appellant to compel payment of no-fault benefits in the amount of its bill, plus statutory interest and attorney's fees, alleging that it had provided timely notice and proof of claim under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1, which required an insured person's assignee to submit written proof of claim no later than 45 days after the date health care services were rendered. At issue was whether a health care services provider, as assignee of a person injured in a motor vehicle accident, could recover no-fault benefits by timely submitting the required proof of claim after the 30-day period for providing written notice of the accident had expired. The court held that the submission of the proof of claim within 45 days of the date health care services were rendered could not serve as timely written notice of accident after the 30-day period for providing such written notice had expired. View "New York and Presbyterian Hospital v. Country Wide Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute over the status of a negotiated settlement agreement pertaining to New York City's duty to provide mental health services to certain inmates in its jails. At issue was whether the terms of the agreement expired before plaintiffs filed a motion in Supreme Court seeking to extend the City's obligations. Applying the state's traditional principles of contract interpretation, the court held that plaintiffs sought relief prior to termination of the settlement agreement and their motion was therefore timely filed. View "Brad H., et al. v. The City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Respondent, a designee of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, petitioned for an order under Mental Health Hygiene Law 9.60 requiring assisted outpatient treatment ("AOT") for Miguel M. At issue was whether the Privacy Rule adopted by the federal government pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2, prohibited respondent from disclosing, at the petition hearing, records from two hospitals related to three occasions on which Miguel was hospitalized. The court held that the Privacy Rule prohibited the disclosure of a patient's medical records to a state agency that requested them for use in a proceeding to compel the patient to accept mental health treatment where the patient had neither authorized the disclosure nor received notice of the agency's request for the records. Accordingly, the medical records at issue were not admissible in a proceeding to compel AOT.