Datiz v. Shoob

New York Court of Appeals
Datiz v. Shoob, 71 N.Y.2d 867 (N.Y. 1988)
527 N.Y.S.2d 749; 522 N.E.2d 1047; 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 206

Datiz v. Shoob

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

It is generally true that the mere referral of a patient by one physician to another, without more, does not render the referring doctor vicariously liable for the negligence of the treating physician (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 NY2d 535; Hill v St. Clare’s Hosp., 67 NY2d 72, 79; Graddy v New York Med. Coll., 19 AD2d 426, 429, mot to dismiss appeal denied 13 NY2d 1175; Nisenholtz v Mount Sinai Hosp., 126 Misc 2d 658, 663). Here, however, there is evidence in the record from which the jury could have concluded that defendant — the referring pediatrician — had been independently negligent in diagnosing the infant plaintiff’s condition, and that this misdiagnosis constituted a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. *869This being so, defendant, as the initial wrongdoer, cannot escape liability merely by showing that the subsequent treating physician to whom plaintiff was referred was also negligent (see, Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 NY2d 305, 310; Suria v Shiftman, 67 NY2d 87, 98). We have examined defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Dillon* concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.

Reference

Full Case Name
Marisol Datiz, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Luiz Datiz v. M. Philip Shoob
Cited By
19 cases
Status
Published