Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Rogak Report: 29 May 2008 (Part II) ** Bills of Particulars **

Expand Messages
  • insurancelawyer
    VAGUE ALLEGATIONS IN BILL OF PARTICULARS LEAD TO DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT Myers v. Community General Hospital of Sullivan County 2008 NY Slip Op 04814 Decided on
    Message 1 of 1 , May 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      VAGUE ALLEGATIONS IN BILL OF PARTICULARS LEAD TO DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT

      Myers v. Community General Hospital of Sullivan County
      2008 NY Slip Op 04814
      Decided on May 29, 2008
      Appellate Division, Third Department
      Edited by Lawrence N. Rogak


      Plaintiff Elizabeth Myers was involved in an automobile accident in August 2000 and was transported to defendant Community General Hospital of Sullivan County for treatment. While there, Myers underwent a series of radiological examinations that were interpreted by defendant Robert Mueller as evidencing no sign of fracture or misalignment. Two months later, an MRI of Myers' spine apparently disclosed a compressed fracture at the L1 level.

      Myers and her spouse commenced this medical malpractice action against the hospital which, in turn, commenced a third-party action against Mueller and defendant Samuel Okonta, the emergency room physician who treated Myers upon her arrival. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in June 2003 naming defendant, the hospital and Okonta as party defendants and, shortly thereafter, defendant served his demand for a bill of particulars. Plaintiffs responded with an unverified bill of particulars.

      As discovery progressed, the sufficiency of plaintiffs' bill of particulars became an issue and, by order dated October 5, 2005, Supreme Court, Sullivan County, directed that plaintiffs provide a supplemental bill of particulars "setting forth specific and particular allegations" of the negligence and/or malpractice alleged with regard to defendant Mueller.  That mandate was reiterated in an order dated October 20, 2005. Although plaintiffs served an unverified "supplemental" bill of particulars in December 2005, it essentially mirrored plaintiffs' original submission. As a result, defendant moved for an order of preclusion in January 2006 which Supreme Court conditionally granted.

      Plaintiffs, who did not oppose the application, were given 30 days within which to comply and were warned that any further neglect of their obligation to comply would result in the dismissal of this action.   When no supplemental bill of particulars was forthcoming, defendant brought this motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3126. Supreme Court granted the motion, and plaintiffs appealed.

      The Appellate Division held, "Where, as here, a party fails to comply with a discovery order, CPLR 3216 authorizes the court to fashion an appropriate remedy, the nature and degree of which is a matter committed to the court's sound discretion.   The penalty imposed will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of the court's discretion, even if the sanction is dismissal of the underlying complaint."

      "Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we cannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to dismiss. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial.   To that end, a bill of particulars must clearly detail the specific acts of negligence attributed to each defendant, and the use of phrases such as 'including but not limited to' or 'among other things,' which plaintiffs employed, plainly are improper as they destroy its most essential functions."   [emphasis added]

      "Here, despite being given three opportunities to cure what Supreme Court appropriately concluded was a nonresponsive bill of particulars particularly with respect to the injuries, subsequent surgeries and loss of earnings allegedly suffered or incurred by Myers and being warned that continued noncompliance would result in dismissal, plaintiffs nonetheless failed to provide more detailed responses to defendant's demand. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs' willfulness may be inferred and such conduct, in turn, warranted dismissal of the complaint as to defendant."

      Larry Rogak

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.