Preview:

[*1]


Decided on February 23, 2004
Supreme Court, New York County

102336/02 Joan B. Carey, J.
Introduction
Motion by the defendants to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff's experts at trial based upon the plaintiff's failure to provide a sufficient response to the defendants' demands pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i).

Facts & Procedural Posture

The plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendants on February 1, 2002 to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. Accompanying the defendants' separate answers to the complaint were demands for expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i). Each of the nearly-identical demands requested a litany of information regarding the experts' backgrounds, and the substance of their proposed testimony.
The plaintiff's response, dated July 25, 2003, to the defendants' demands pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) stated, in pertinent part, that:
Plaintiff has retained a surgeon who is board certified by the American Board of Surgery as an expert in this case. This doctor has a medical degree and did [sic] internship at Mount Sinai and [sic] residency at St. Vincent's Hospital Center. This doctor has knowledge, experience and training in performing hernia repair surgery as well as diagnosing and treating femoral nerve injuries.
Plaintiff has also retained a doctor who is board certified by both the American Board of Anesthesiology and the American Board of Pain Management as an expert in this case. This doctor has a medical degree and did [sic] internship at Kings County and [sic] residency at Mount Sinai.
By a letter, dated January 12, 2004, the defendants rejected the plaintiff's CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) response on the ground that the plaintiff failed to list the: (1) medical schools [*2]attended by each of the experts, (2) experts' areas of special expertise, (3) jurisdictions in which the experts were licensed, and (4) locations of fellowships performed by the experts.
By an order to show cause, executed by the court on February 10, 2004, made returnable February 20th, and ultimately heard on February 23rd, the defendants move to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff's experts at trial citing the purported deficiencies, spelled out in the letter of January 12th, in the plaintiff's CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) response.

Analysis
CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) requires the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case, upon demand, to disclose in reasonable detail the qualifications of his or her prospective expert witnesses, while, simultaneously, permitting that plaintiff to withhold the names of the experts.
The scope of the extent to which a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must disclose his or her experts' qualifications was recently treated by the Appellate Division, Second Department in Thomas v Alleyne (302 AD2d 36 [2002]). In Thomas, the defendants demanded disclosure of, among other things, the information the defendants in the instant matter are seeking (e.g. medical schools attended, areas of expertise), and the plaintiff moved for a protective order to prevent
disclosing certain information demanded.[FN1] Abandoning as unworkable the prior approach utilized to determine whether certain information regarding the qualifications of an expert was discoverable (see e.g. Jasopersaud v Rho, 169 AD2d 184 [2d Dept. 1991])

Download 2004_51388.pdf

New York Law