Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitsettlementplaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentwillleasesustainedmotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilityappealmotionsummary judgmentwillleasesustainedmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Rigby v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 717 Fed.Appx. 834
View Case »
Alexander v. Rizzo, 50 F.R.D. 374, 14 Fed.R.Serv.2d 227
View Case »
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, 75 USLW 4337, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,709, 68 Fed.R.Serv.3d 661, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5550, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7097, 41 Communications Reg. (P&F) 567, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267
View Case »
Breeland v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 26 F.R.D. 119, 1960 A.M.C. 2093, 3 Fed.R.Serv.2d 570
View Case »
Wold v. Robart, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 1135396
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Marchello by Marchello v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 107 A.D.2d 566, 483 N.Y.S.2d 305

Facts

In April 1971, Maureen Marchello, an infant with Down's Syndrome, underwent a cardiac catheterization at Lenox Hill Hospital, during which she suffered second-degree burns on her right leg due to negligent application of hot compresses. A lawsuit was filed for these burns, which was settled in September 1974 for $3,500, with a general release executed. In March 1978, a new action was initiated against the same defendants for a right foot drop condition allegedly resulting from the earlier procedure, leading to a dispute over the validity of the release.

In April 1971, the infant, Maureen Marchello, who suffers from Down's Syndrome, underwent a cardiac catheterization procedure at Lenox Hill Hospital. After the procedure had been completed she sustained second degree burns on her right leg as a result of the negligent application of hot compresses. Subsequently, an action was commenced to recover damages for 'first … degree burns of the right leg with erythema and blue discoloration with cellulitis.' In September of 1974, this action was settled for $3,500 and a general release was executed and delivered to the defendants.

Issue

Whether the general release executed in the prior action barred the subsequent claim for the right foot drop condition, which was alleged to be secondary to the burns sustained by the infant.

Whether the general release executed in the prior action barred the subsequent claim for the right foot drop condition, which was alleged to be secondary to the burns sustained by the infant.

Rule

A release will stand if the injury is known and the mistake pertains only to the consequences or sequelae of that known injury, as established in Mangini v. McClurg.

A mistaken belief as to the nonexistence of a presently existing injury is a prerequisite to avoidance of a release … If the injury is known, and the mistake, it has been said, is merely as to the consequence, future course, or sequelae of a known injury, then the release will stand (citations omitted)

Analysis

The court applied the rule from Mangini, determining that the general release executed in 1974 was a complete bar to the new claim. The plaintiff's expert acknowledged that the right foot drop was secondary to the known injury of the burns, which were already compensated for in the earlier settlement. Thus, the court found that the release covered the sequelae of the original injury.

Applying the Court of Appeals' reasoning in Mangini to the facts presented on this appeal, it is clear that the general release and compromise order executed in 1974 stand as a complete bar to the relief which plaintiff now seeks. Plaintiff's own expert has concluded that the foot drop is secondary to the burn inflicted on the infant's right leg, certainly a known injury at the time of the execution of the general release.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court should be reversed and the complaint dismissed.

Who won?

Defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the general release executed in the prior action barred the subsequent claim for the right foot drop condition, which was a known sequela of the original injury.

Defendants appeal from the denial of their motion for summary judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the defendants had been released from any liability with respect to the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff.

You must be