Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46412 Justice Carey WITHIN THE context of a medical malpractice action, defendant doctors and hospital, by order to show cause, sought to preclude testimony by plaintiff’s medical expert due to insufficient responses to their demands for expert disclosure under Civil Practice Law and Rules �3101(d)(1)(i). In a Jan. 12, 2003 letter, defendants rejected plaintiff’s �3101(d)(1)(i) response for her failure to list the: medical schools attended by her experts; their areas of special expertise; jurisdictions of licensure; and, location of fellowships. Relying on the appellate decision in Thomas v. Alleyne, the court found that plaintiff’s compliance with �3101(d)(1)(i) would not lead to the disclosure of her experts’ identities or subject them to unreasonable annoyance or prejudice. Citing Muniz v. Our Lady of Mercy Med. Ctr., the court ruled that plaintiff’s response could be cured by a supplemental response providing the information sought by defendants’ letter.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.