this Court’s order to respond in full to the Hospital’s discovery requests and produce the requested documents. Additionally, Defendant failed to respond to the Hospital’s attempts to confer on this Motion.
III. Conclusion and Prayer
Defendant’s bad faith behavior implies that he considers himself to be above the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the authority of this Court. The complete lack of respect for the Hospital, the Hospital’s counsel, this Court, and the Rules of Civil Procedure shown by blatantly ignoring valid discovery requests for more than six months and this Court’s Order for more than two months indicate a willful disregard that require sanctions. Accordingly, the sanctions sought by the Hospital are necessary and are not excessive. Indeed, the Hospital requests that the Court give Defendant one more chance to meet his discovery obligations and comply with an order of this Court before the imposition of a default judgment in the Hospital’s favor.
…show more content…
R. Civ. P. 215.1(d) and 215.2(b)(8), (4) notify Defendant that a failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in an entry of a default judgment in the Hospital’s favor on all of its claims, and (5) grant such other further relief, both at law and in equity, to which the Hospital may show itself justly
Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.
However, Plaintiff failed to explain what instructions were or were not given. Defendant’s complaint lacked important substance to support the vicarious liability allegation; subsequently it is likely that our 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted. In conclusion, my legal team and I believe that it is likely that the whole complaint can be dismissed.
The plaintiff lives in Michigan with her husband and children and was undergoing marital difficulties. She had intended to file for divorce. December 6, 1963 the defendant appeared at her home and introduced himself as “Dr. Wolodzko.” He had never met the plaintiff or husband prior to the visit and he stated that the husband had called him. The plaintiff testified that the defendant told her that he was there to just ask about the husband’s back and that he never told her he was a psychiatrist.
raise the issue in her charge. The court disagreed, holding that Farrow limited her charge to events that occurred prior to her discharge in December 2008. In regards to Farrow’s wrongful discharge claim against Dr. Strange, the court found that Dr. Strange was Farrow’s supervisor, not an employer. Therefore, this claim must fail because there is no claim for wrongful discharge against a non-employer. In her wrongful discharge claim against St. Francis, Farrow alleged St. Francis discharged her because of her outspoken disapproval of and failure to comply with changes to certain procedures instituted by St. Francis which required non-nurses to perform certain tasks.
Facts of the Case Ronald Rompilla, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Stated in 2005. This case was about the death of James Scalon, whose body was discovered in a bar in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Scalon had been stabbed multiple times and was set on fire. Ronald Rompilla was indicted for murder and other related offenses, and the Commonwealth asked for the potential of the death penalty. Rompilla was found guilty on all counts during the penalty phase.
The appellant essential accommodation claim went to trial but court excluded evidence regarding to disability. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However the issue should have been decided by jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.
________ Foreman, Dr. Richard Nelson, and Dr. Joshua Halpern before I cancelled my scheduled surgery; Halpern was able to reschedule another patient to undergo surgery during my scheduled surgery time and Halpern received the sum of $5,800.00 from that patient; I rejected my opportunity to reschedule my surgery; and I am not entitled to receive any amounts from any of the Halpern Parties other than the $5,800.00 payment described in this
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?
The court found the “Defendant's care of Claimant fell below acceptable standards of practice” (Stashenko, 2015). In 2009 a former inmate of the Hawaii corrections department was awarded close to $1 million in damages for an incident in 2003, in which the physician’s failure to give the correct type and dosage of antibiotic for an infection in his scrotum. This resulted in 6 subsequent surgeries and the removal of his scrotum, rendering him
The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual. The issue is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in the favor of the defendant because the shaker table rotation rule at issue was an essential function of the employee’s job.
Professor Spencer’s first proposal seeks a solution to a common complaint of defense counsels: burdensome discovery requests. Spencer argues the reintroduction of the judge into cases in which discovery poses a significant threat would mitigate many of the current problems. In essence, Spencer’s first proposal envisions a return to the pre-1970 Federal Rules of Procedure in these cases.
Procedural History: Ewing was enrolled in a 6-year program of combined undergraduate and medical education at the University of Michigan known as "Inteflex." For Ewing to qualify for the final two years of the program, a student must pass an examination known as "NBME Part I." Respondent was dismissed from the University when he failed this examination with the lowest score recorded in the history of the Inteflex program. After Ewing was unsuccessful in the readmission process to the program, he brought the case to the Federal District Court. He was alleging a right to retake the examination on the ground, inter alia, that he had a property interest in the Inteflex program and that his dismissal was arbitrary and capricious in violation of his "substantive due process rights" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. While determining that respondent had a constitutionally
MOTION TO DISMISS RULE TO SHOW CAUSE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ADVISEMENT HEARING COME NOW Vernida R. Chaney, Esq. and enter her appearance on behalf of the defendant, Georgia Sunlee Hazel, and move this Honorable Court to dismiss the rule to show against the defendant on the grounds that the defendant completed the balance of her community service hours. See Exhibit A (attached). In alternative, the defendant, through counsel, moves the this Honorable Court to continue the advisement hearing scheduled for November 5, 2015 on the grounds that counsel has a conflict and is unavailable to attend the hearing on behalf of the defendant. If the Court grants the motion to continue, counsel is available on the following dates:
Although the defendant was found to be negligent, the trial judge held that the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving that this negligence had caused his disease or materially contributed to it. The Lord Ordinary (Lord Kissen)
On the above date at approximately 0017hours I was removing inmates from cell 7 who were in the gym for recreation time. Upon opening the door I noticed Dean, Terrance (A-15545) was bent over and his arm was dangling. I asked Dean if he was okay and he stated that he dislocated his shoulder playing handball.