Preview
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
---------------------------------- --------- x
PAMELA KELLY,
Index No. 36543/2018
Plaintiff(s),
RESPONSE TO
- against -
JANUARY 2, 2020
DEMAND LETTER
MONTEFIORE NYACK HOSPITAL, and MONTEFIORE
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and MICHAEL TOROSSIAN
Defendant(s).
----x
COUNSELORS:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Defendants, MONTEFIORE NYACK HOSPITAL and
MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., hereby respond to plaintiff's discovery demands
letter dated January 2, 2020, upon information and belief, as follows:
Demand: Demands For Incident Reports Generated Due To Allegations Of Violence
For A 3 Year Period.
Response: Objection. See substantive rejection letter,dated January 10, 2020, annexed
"A."
hereto as Exhibit Defendants object to these demands on the grounds that they are
overly broad, unduly burdensome, duplicative, vague, seek irrelevant information
which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to
establish notice that Michael Torossian would enter the plaintiff's hospital room on
October 1, 2018; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence to establish that hospital employees on Floor 4D on October 1, 2018
reasonably protected the plaintiff; duplicitous in that it seeks material which is stored
by G4S Secured Solutions whom has already been subpoenaed to produce discovery on
"unequivocally"
or before January 27, 2020 (see NYSCEF doc. #107); and are
privileged under Education Law §6527, the Court of Appeals ruling in Katherine
F. v. State and this Honorable Court's priors orders dated December 13, 2019 and
November 20, 2019.
Demand: Copies of all statements, oral and in writing made by plaintiff to defendant
regarding the subject incident.
Response: No Objection. Defendant will respond under separate cover.
Demand: Names and addresses of witnesses to the incident including but not limited to
patients on the 4th floor where the subject incident occurred, volunteers and/or
employees.
Response: Objection. In addition to those employees named within the plaintiff's
medical records; the nursing staff was previously disclosed by response dated
September 24, 2019 and 1:1 sitters and security personnel on duty were previously
disclosed by response dated August 13, 2019. Moreover, defendant objects to plaintiff's
patients'
demand for names and addresses, which are subject to privileges under Public
Health Law §2805-1 and Education Law §6527 (3) and/or under Public Health Law §18
(6), CPLR 4504, the physician/patient privilege, and HIPAA, see Gunn v. Sound Shore
Med. Ctr. of Westchester, 5 AD3d 435 (2d Dept. 2004) ("ifthe revelation of a patient's
location in a hospital would, by simple deduction, also reveal that patient's medical
status, such discovery would run afoul of CPLR 4504 and the intent behind HIPAA.").
Demand: The name and last-known address of the hospital Safety Officer employed by
defendant on the date of the subject incident pursuant to Security Manual Policy
Section 900.
Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine whether
hospital safety officer described in policy section 900 is a Montefiore Nyack Hospital
employee. Respondent notes that policy 900 refers directly to the G4S employee
handbook. Identity of the individual is unknown at this time. Defendant will respond
under separate cover.
Demand: The name and last known address of the Security Manager who was a
permanent member of the hospital safety committee on the date of the incident,
pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 1600.
Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine whether
the security manager described in policy section 1600 is a Montefiore Nyack Hospital
employee. Identity of the individual is unknown at this time. Defendant will respond
under separate cover.
Demañd: All security training, oral and written, provided to hospital personnel, for a 3
year period pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 3300.
Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine whether
the security training material demanded is maintained by G4S Secured Solutions.
Defendant will respond under separate cover.
Demand: Name and last-known address for the Charge Nurse on duty at the time of the
incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 3900.
Response: No Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine the
identity of the charge nurse on the date of the allegation, and will respond under
separate cover.
Demand: Name and last-known address for the Security Supervisor on duty at the time
of the incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 3900 & 3500.
Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine the
identity of the Security Supervisor as of the date of the alleged negligence, as well as
whether the Security Supervisor is an employee of G4S Secured Solutions. Defendant
will respond under separate cover.
Demand: Copies of all training manuals, documentation and all other, regarding
security officer training identified in Security Manual Policy Section 4100.
Response: Objection. By information and belief, it isthe responsibility of G4S Secured
Solutions to ensure that all persons engaged in security guard activities have completed
all required NYS initial and annual training and are registered with the NYS
Department of State.
Demand: Communication log for Patient Watch instituted in connection with the
subject incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 600.
Response: Objection. Montefiore Nyack Hospital has previously disclosed the names
"PCA"
of the 1:1 sitters (referred to as in the policy cited to by plaintiff) by response
dated September 24, 2019. Moreover, Defendant is conducting an investigation to
Watch"
determine whether the "Communication log for Patient for the date of alleged
negligence is maintained by G4S Secured Solutions. Defendant will respond under
separate cover.
Demand: The Security Management Plan in effect on the date of the subject incident,
pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 100.
Response: Objection. This demand is more appropriately directed at G4S Secure
Solutions, whom has been separately subpoenaed by the plaintiff. As of the date of
alleged negligence, G4S Secured Solutions provided the support services and personnel
necessary to implement the security management plan.
Defendants reserve their right to supplement and/or amend these Responses at any time
up to, and including, the time of trial. All other and further rights afforded by the CPLR are
likewise reserved.
Dated: White Plains, New York
January 9, 2020
Yours, etc.
VOUTÉ, LQHRFINK, MAGRO & McANDREW, LLP
By:
an Lyman
Attorneys for De ndants
170 Hamilton A enue
White Plains, New York 10601-1789
(914) 946-1400
To: Via NYSCEF
SESKIN & SESKIN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
59*
110 East Street
New York, New York 10022
(212) 751-0077
Preview
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ---------------------------------- --------- x PAMELA KELLY, Index No. 36543/2018 Plaintiff(s), RESPONSE TO - against - JANUARY 2, 2020 DEMAND LETTER MONTEFIORE NYACK HOSPITAL, and MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and MICHAEL TOROSSIAN Defendant(s). ----x COUNSELORS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Defendants, MONTEFIORE NYACK HOSPITAL and MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., hereby respond to plaintiff's discovery demands letter dated January 2, 2020, upon information and belief, as follows: Demand: Demands For Incident Reports Generated Due To Allegations Of Violence For A 3 Year Period. Response: Objection. See substantive rejection letter,dated January 10, 2020, annexed "A." hereto as Exhibit Defendants object to these demands on the grounds that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, duplicative, vague, seek irrelevant information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to establish notice that Michael Torossian would enter the plaintiff's hospital room on October 1, 2018; not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to establish that hospital employees on Floor 4D on October 1, 2018 reasonably protected the plaintiff; duplicitous in that it seeks material which is stored by G4S Secured Solutions whom has already been subpoenaed to produce discovery on "unequivocally" or before January 27, 2020 (see NYSCEF doc. #107); and are privileged under Education Law §6527, the Court of Appeals ruling in Katherine F. v. State and this Honorable Court's priors orders dated December 13, 2019 and November 20, 2019. Demand: Copies of all statements, oral and in writing made by plaintiff to defendant regarding the subject incident. Response: No Objection. Defendant will respond under separate cover. Demand: Names and addresses of witnesses to the incident including but not limited to patients on the 4th floor where the subject incident occurred, volunteers and/or employees. Response: Objection. In addition to those employees named within the plaintiff's medical records; the nursing staff was previously disclosed by response dated September 24, 2019 and 1:1 sitters and security personnel on duty were previously disclosed by response dated August 13, 2019. Moreover, defendant objects to plaintiff's patients' demand for names and addresses, which are subject to privileges under Public Health Law §2805-1 and Education Law §6527 (3) and/or under Public Health Law §18 (6), CPLR 4504, the physician/patient privilege, and HIPAA, see Gunn v. Sound Shore Med. Ctr. of Westchester, 5 AD3d 435 (2d Dept. 2004) ("ifthe revelation of a patient's location in a hospital would, by simple deduction, also reveal that patient's medical status, such discovery would run afoul of CPLR 4504 and the intent behind HIPAA."). Demand: The name and last-known address of the hospital Safety Officer employed by defendant on the date of the subject incident pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 900. Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine whether hospital safety officer described in policy section 900 is a Montefiore Nyack Hospital employee. Respondent notes that policy 900 refers directly to the G4S employee handbook. Identity of the individual is unknown at this time. Defendant will respond under separate cover. Demand: The name and last known address of the Security Manager who was a permanent member of the hospital safety committee on the date of the incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 1600. Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine whether the security manager described in policy section 1600 is a Montefiore Nyack Hospital employee. Identity of the individual is unknown at this time. Defendant will respond under separate cover. Demañd: All security training, oral and written, provided to hospital personnel, for a 3 year period pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 3300. Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine whether the security training material demanded is maintained by G4S Secured Solutions. Defendant will respond under separate cover. Demand: Name and last-known address for the Charge Nurse on duty at the time of the incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 3900. Response: No Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine the identity of the charge nurse on the date of the allegation, and will respond under separate cover. Demand: Name and last-known address for the Security Supervisor on duty at the time of the incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 3900 & 3500. Response: Objection. Defendant is conducting an investigation to determine the identity of the Security Supervisor as of the date of the alleged negligence, as well as whether the Security Supervisor is an employee of G4S Secured Solutions. Defendant will respond under separate cover. Demand: Copies of all training manuals, documentation and all other, regarding security officer training identified in Security Manual Policy Section 4100. Response: Objection. By information and belief, it isthe responsibility of G4S Secured Solutions to ensure that all persons engaged in security guard activities have completed all required NYS initial and annual training and are registered with the NYS Department of State. Demand: Communication log for Patient Watch instituted in connection with the subject incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 600. Response: Objection. Montefiore Nyack Hospital has previously disclosed the names "PCA" of the 1:1 sitters (referred to as in the policy cited to by plaintiff) by response dated September 24, 2019. Moreover, Defendant is conducting an investigation to Watch" determine whether the "Communication log for Patient for the date of alleged negligence is maintained by G4S Secured Solutions. Defendant will respond under separate cover. Demand: The Security Management Plan in effect on the date of the subject incident, pursuant to Security Manual Policy Section 100. Response: Objection. This demand is more appropriately directed at G4S Secure Solutions, whom has been separately subpoenaed by the plaintiff. As of the date of alleged negligence, G4S Secured Solutions provided the support services and personnel necessary to implement the security management plan. Defendants reserve their right to supplement and/or amend these Responses at any time up to, and including, the time of trial. All other and further rights afforded by the CPLR are likewise reserved. Dated: White Plains, New York January 9, 2020 Yours, etc. VOUTÉ, LQHRFINK, MAGRO & McANDREW, LLP By: an Lyman Attorneys for De ndants 170 Hamilton A enue White Plains, New York 10601-1789 (914) 946-1400 To: Via NYSCEF SESKIN & SESKIN Attorneys for Plaintiff 59* 110 East Street New York, New York 10022 (212) 751-0077