New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHARMA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-019-519, Claim No. 90630, Motion No. M-61435


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to compel production of State's medical expert's supplemental report denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-019-519
Claimant(s):
BHAGMATTY SHARMA and JAGAT SHARMA
Claimant short name:
SHARMA
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
90630
Motion number(s):
M-61435
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
DiJOSEPH, PORTEGELLO & SCHUSTER, P.C.BY: ARNOLD E. DiJOSEPH, III, ESQ., of counsel
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DIANE G. TEMKIN, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 8, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimants moved for an order compelling expert witness disclosure in relation to this medical malpractice claim scheduled for trial on September 25 through 29, 2000. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") has supplied the original "Supplemental Report" of Jerome Block, M.D., dated August 12, 1998, for an in camera inspection pursuant to my Decision and Order filed on May 11, 2000.

I have completed my in camera review and find that the State need not disclose Dr. Block's Supplemental Report since it is comprised solely of a record review. The parties were in agreement regarding the legal principles controlling the resolution of this issue, namely that the law does not require the production of reports if an expert did not physically examine a litigant. (Edelman v Holmes Private Ambulances, 32 AD2d 563). The parties disagreed, however, regarding the application of this legal principle to the facts of this case. The State argued that the Supplemental Report was purely a record review despite the fact that Dr. Block previously examined the Claimant.[1] Although the Court was skeptical of the possibility that Dr. Block's Supplemental Report could be isolated from his physical examination, my in camera review of the Supplemental Report finds this is exactly what in fact occurred. I find Dr. Block's "Supplemental Report" is based purely on a record review and does not, even to the smallest degree, rely upon the doctor's prior physical examination of Claimant.


In view of the foregoing, Claimant's motion to compel, Motion No. M-61435, with respect to Dr. Block's Supplemental Report is DENIED. Dr. Block's original Supplemental Report has been returned to the attorney general's office.


June 8, 2000
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]Claimant" refers solely to Bhagmatty Sharma.