Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
x
TERRANCE SLYMAN and MARIA SLYMAN,
Plaintiffs, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
- against -
Index No. 805021/17
PETER J. STAHL, M.D., JEFFREY NEWHOUSE,
M.D. and COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
CENTER UROLOGY,
Defendants.
x
SARA A. AKSU, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of
the State of New York, hereby submits the following State of Undisputed Material Facts pursuant
to Uniform Court Rule 202.8-g in support of the Summary Judgment Motion on behalf of
Defendants PETER J. STAHL, M.D., and THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN
THE CITY OF NEW YORK s/h/a “COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
UROLOGY” (hereinafter referred to as “COLUMBIA” and collectively as the “moving
defendants”), and affirms the following statement of facts to be true under the penalties of perjury:
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. DR. STAHL is a urologist employed by Columbia University. (Exhibit F page 7).
2. Co-defendant DR. NEWHOUSE is employed by Columbia University. (Exhibit G,
page 7). He is an associate professor at Columbia University Medical Center and an attending
radiologist at the New York Presbyterian Hospital. (Exhibit G, pages 7-8).
3. The plaintiff initially presented to DR. STAHL’s office on February 11, 2015 with a
chief complaint of erectile dysfunction that had been present for approximately 1 year but
improved with Cialis. (Exhibit I, pages 26-27). His physical examination was unremarkable and
1
1 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021
various tests were ordered. (Id.)
4. The plaintiff next presented to DR. STAHL on June 17, 2015. (Exhibit I, page 21). Dr.
Stahl ordered a work up for gross hematuria, which included a CT/urogram, urine culture,
urinalysis, and a cysto-urethroscopy. (Exhibit I, page 21).
5. A cystourethroscopy was performed by DR. STAHL on June 25, 2016. (Exhibit I, page
20).
6. The plaintiff also underwent a CT urogram on June 25, 2016, which was interpreted by
co-defendant DR. NEWHOUSE. (Exhibit I, pages 14-15). CT urogram showed bilateral renal
cysts, with the largest one in the inter-polar region of the right kidney measuring 1.5 cm. (Id.) The
median lobe of the prostate was seen indenting the bladder base. (Id.) There was no filling defect
seen within the bilateral pelvicalyceal system, ureter or urinary bladder, and no evidence of urinary
tract calculus or hydronephrosis. (Id.)
7. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff was evaluated by a nurse practitioner at Dr. Stahl’s office.
(Exhibit J, pages 49-51.). The assessment was that the plaintiff had benign prostatic hyperplasia
(BPH) which was likely the source of the bleeding, and erectile dysfunction. (Exhibit J, page 51).
8. The plaintiff returned to Dr. Stahl’s office on October 5, 2015. The results of the CT
urogram performed on July 25th was documented by Dr. Stahl on this visit. (Id., pages 14-15). That
study showed no evidence of calculus or hydronephrosis. (Id.) However, the median lobe of the
prostate indented the bladder base. (Id.) Bilateral renal cysts with the largest one being in the inter-
polar region of the right kidney measuring 1.5 cm were noted. (Id.) Dr. Stahl also documented
that the urine cytology results from July 14th included the presence of rare atypical urothelial cells,
benign urothelial and squamous cells, inflammatory cells which were mostly neutrophils, and
many red blood cells. (Id., page 17).
-2-
2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021
9. The plaintiff did not return to Dr. Stahl’s office until March 2, 2016, at which time he
was seen by a nurse practitioner. (Exhibit J. pages 37-40). The nurse practitioner referred the
plaintiff to non-party Dr. Matthew Rutman, whose practice involves transurethral prostate surgery.
Plaintiff did not return to Dr. Stahl thereafter. (Id.)
10. The plaintiff was evaluated by non-party Dr. Rutman on July 12, 2016. (Exhibit J, page
64). A CT urogram was also performed on July 20, 2016. (Exhibit J, pages 120-121). The
impression was that the findings represented a right renal pelvic mass that was most consistent
with a transitional cell carcinoma. (Id.)
11. The plaintiff was next seen in the urology office by non-party uro-oncologist
Christopher Anderson, M.D. on July 21, 2016. (Exhibit J, pages 173-176). The plan was for the
plaintiff to undergo a right ureteroscopy and biopsy. (Id.) Dr. Anderson performed a right
ureteroscopy biopsy on July 25, 2016, which confirmed invasive, high grade papillary urothelial
carcinoma in the sample taken from the right upper pole of the right kidney. (Exhibit J, pages 140-
141; 149.)
12. The plaintiff began treatment with an oncologist at Orlando Health Hospital on August
3, 2016 and began chemotherapy a few days later. (Exhibit J, page 20).
13. In October 2016, Dr. Lim noted that a PET/CT demonstrated an excellent response to
the chemotherapy. (Exhibit J, page 15).
14. In December 2016, at the conclusion of chemotherapy, the plaintiff underwent surgery.
(Exhibit J, pages 146-148; 157). During the procedure, the lesion referenced in the July 21, 2016
addendum to the CT urogram report was removed and found to be a benign mass. (Exhibit J, page
139).
15. On December 12, 2016, an addendum was authored to the report of the CT urogram
-3-
3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021
performed on June 25, 2015. (Exhibit J, page 122). The addendum indicated that the 2.1 cm
spherical lesion in the right kidney described in the addendum to the report of the CT urogram of
July 20, 2016 is present on this exam and has the same size and appearance as it does on the later
CT urogram. (Id.) It most likely represents a neoplasm; its stability suggests a slow growing, renal
cell variety (papillary or chromophobe) or oncocytoma. (Id.).
16. His subsequent tests were negative for reoccurrence and the plaintiff has remained in
remission. (Exhibit E, Transcript Day 3, page 43).
Dated: New York, New York
June 16, 2021
Yours, etc.
Sara Aksu
BY: Sara A. Aksu
-4-
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x TERRANCE SLYMAN and MARIA SLYMAN, Plaintiffs, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS - against - Index No. 805021/17 PETER J. STAHL, M.D., JEFFREY NEWHOUSE, M.D. and COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UROLOGY, Defendants. x SARA A. AKSU, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby submits the following State of Undisputed Material Facts pursuant to Uniform Court Rule 202.8-g in support of the Summary Judgment Motion on behalf of Defendants PETER J. STAHL, M.D., and THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK s/h/a “COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UROLOGY” (hereinafter referred to as “COLUMBIA” and collectively as the “moving defendants”), and affirms the following statement of facts to be true under the penalties of perjury: STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1. DR. STAHL is a urologist employed by Columbia University. (Exhibit F page 7). 2. Co-defendant DR. NEWHOUSE is employed by Columbia University. (Exhibit G, page 7). He is an associate professor at Columbia University Medical Center and an attending radiologist at the New York Presbyterian Hospital. (Exhibit G, pages 7-8). 3. The plaintiff initially presented to DR. STAHL’s office on February 11, 2015 with a chief complaint of erectile dysfunction that had been present for approximately 1 year but improved with Cialis. (Exhibit I, pages 26-27). His physical examination was unremarkable and 1 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021 various tests were ordered. (Id.) 4. The plaintiff next presented to DR. STAHL on June 17, 2015. (Exhibit I, page 21). Dr. Stahl ordered a work up for gross hematuria, which included a CT/urogram, urine culture, urinalysis, and a cysto-urethroscopy. (Exhibit I, page 21). 5. A cystourethroscopy was performed by DR. STAHL on June 25, 2016. (Exhibit I, page 20). 6. The plaintiff also underwent a CT urogram on June 25, 2016, which was interpreted by co-defendant DR. NEWHOUSE. (Exhibit I, pages 14-15). CT urogram showed bilateral renal cysts, with the largest one in the inter-polar region of the right kidney measuring 1.5 cm. (Id.) The median lobe of the prostate was seen indenting the bladder base. (Id.) There was no filling defect seen within the bilateral pelvicalyceal system, ureter or urinary bladder, and no evidence of urinary tract calculus or hydronephrosis. (Id.) 7. On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff was evaluated by a nurse practitioner at Dr. Stahl’s office. (Exhibit J, pages 49-51.). The assessment was that the plaintiff had benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) which was likely the source of the bleeding, and erectile dysfunction. (Exhibit J, page 51). 8. The plaintiff returned to Dr. Stahl’s office on October 5, 2015. The results of the CT urogram performed on July 25th was documented by Dr. Stahl on this visit. (Id., pages 14-15). That study showed no evidence of calculus or hydronephrosis. (Id.) However, the median lobe of the prostate indented the bladder base. (Id.) Bilateral renal cysts with the largest one being in the inter- polar region of the right kidney measuring 1.5 cm were noted. (Id.) Dr. Stahl also documented that the urine cytology results from July 14th included the presence of rare atypical urothelial cells, benign urothelial and squamous cells, inflammatory cells which were mostly neutrophils, and many red blood cells. (Id., page 17). -2- 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021 9. The plaintiff did not return to Dr. Stahl’s office until March 2, 2016, at which time he was seen by a nurse practitioner. (Exhibit J. pages 37-40). The nurse practitioner referred the plaintiff to non-party Dr. Matthew Rutman, whose practice involves transurethral prostate surgery. Plaintiff did not return to Dr. Stahl thereafter. (Id.) 10. The plaintiff was evaluated by non-party Dr. Rutman on July 12, 2016. (Exhibit J, page 64). A CT urogram was also performed on July 20, 2016. (Exhibit J, pages 120-121). The impression was that the findings represented a right renal pelvic mass that was most consistent with a transitional cell carcinoma. (Id.) 11. The plaintiff was next seen in the urology office by non-party uro-oncologist Christopher Anderson, M.D. on July 21, 2016. (Exhibit J, pages 173-176). The plan was for the plaintiff to undergo a right ureteroscopy and biopsy. (Id.) Dr. Anderson performed a right ureteroscopy biopsy on July 25, 2016, which confirmed invasive, high grade papillary urothelial carcinoma in the sample taken from the right upper pole of the right kidney. (Exhibit J, pages 140- 141; 149.) 12. The plaintiff began treatment with an oncologist at Orlando Health Hospital on August 3, 2016 and began chemotherapy a few days later. (Exhibit J, page 20). 13. In October 2016, Dr. Lim noted that a PET/CT demonstrated an excellent response to the chemotherapy. (Exhibit J, page 15). 14. In December 2016, at the conclusion of chemotherapy, the plaintiff underwent surgery. (Exhibit J, pages 146-148; 157). During the procedure, the lesion referenced in the July 21, 2016 addendum to the CT urogram report was removed and found to be a benign mass. (Exhibit J, page 139). 15. On December 12, 2016, an addendum was authored to the report of the CT urogram -3- 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/17/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 805021/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2021 performed on June 25, 2015. (Exhibit J, page 122). The addendum indicated that the 2.1 cm spherical lesion in the right kidney described in the addendum to the report of the CT urogram of July 20, 2016 is present on this exam and has the same size and appearance as it does on the later CT urogram. (Id.) It most likely represents a neoplasm; its stability suggests a slow growing, renal cell variety (papillary or chromophobe) or oncocytoma. (Id.). 16. His subsequent tests were negative for reoccurrence and the plaintiff has remained in remission. (Exhibit E, Transcript Day 3, page 43). Dated: New York, New York June 16, 2021 Yours, etc. Sara Aksu BY: Sara A. Aksu -4- 4 of 4