Privity between client and attorney is mirrored by the doctrine of the lack of a doctor-patient relationship. Forget that there was a failure to diagnose breast cancer, and that the result can be deadly. Social policy of limiting suits between patients and remote medical providers as well as the social policy of limiting legal malpractice cases is supreme here.
Gormley v Estabrook 2017 NY Slip Op 32021(U) September 25, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 805236/16, Judge Martin Shulman tells us that: “Contrary to Gormley’s claim, RadNet has established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgmerit dismissing the complaint by submitting Linden’s sworn affidavit. See Hanna v North Shore-LIJ Network, Irie., 2013 WL 6222918, at *3 (Sup Ct Nassau County) (affidavit from defendant’s employee averring that defendant does not render patient care, did not render care to plaintiff and was not a corporate member of co-defendant medical center established entitlement to summary judgment and shifted burden to plaintiff to establish a material issue of fact). Upon RadNet establishing its prima facie case the burden shifted to plaintiff to “present facts in admissible form sufficient to raise genuine, triable issues of fact.” Mazurek v Metropolitan Museum of Art, supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra. “