755 N.Y.S.2d 384 | N.Y. App. Div. | 2003
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered July 24, 2001, which, in an action for medical malpractice, granted motions to compel a further examination before trial of defendant-appellant, and denied appellant’s cross motion for, inter alia, summary judgment dismissing all claims against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS court correctly held that appellant’s reading of plaintiffs X rays did not relate to any quality assurance review function of defendant hospital, where the X rays were taken, and that information pertaining to such reading is therefore not immune from disclosure under Education Law § 6527 (3) and Public Health Law § 2805-m. As the IAS court explained,
Appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied, there being an issue of fact as to whether there was a physician-patient relationship between appellant and plaintiff. An implied physician-patient relationship can arise when a physician gives advice to a patient, even if the advice is communicated through another health care professional (see Cogswell v Chapman, 249 AD2d 865). It is not necessary that a radiologist see, examine, take a history of or treat a patient in rendering medical services (cf. Fredericks v North Gen. Hosp., 289 AD2d 126). Appellant’s contract with defendant hospital, under which he was to interpret X rays for purposes of quality review, does not necessarily resolve this issue of fact in his favor, given the evidence tending to show that he rendered a diagnostic opinion. We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Williams and Lerner, JJ.
