Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss

848 N.E.2d 1285 (2006)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 32,100+ case briefs...

Hinlicky v. Dreyfuss

Court of Appeals of New York

848 N.E.2d 1285 (2006)


Marie Hinlicky (plaintiff), 71, consulted her primary care physician Dr. Robert Frank (defendant) for high blood pressure, shortness of breath, exhaustion, and chest pain. Hinlicky informed Frank that her sister had recently undergone carotid artery surgery and her brother had a heart bypass operation. Frank became concerned that Hinlicky had plaque blockages in her arteries obstructing blood flow to her brain. Frank referred Hinlicky to Dr. David Dreyfuss (defendant) for a surgical evaluation. Dreyfuss, a vascular surgeon, recommended an endarterectomy operation to remove the plaque buildup in her neck arteries. Because of Hinlicky’s age and the invasiveness of the operation, physicians often are required to determine whether the patient’s heart and other organs can tolerate the procedure. However, because of Hinlicky’s lack of heart attacks or other heart-related issues, Dreyfuss did not order a pre-operative cardiac evaluation. Additionally, the anesthesiologist involved in Hinlicky’s case, Dr. Ilioff (defendant), reviewed Hinlicky’s medical history and interviewed her personally. He determined that based on her lack of heart-related issues there was no need to send Hinlicky for a pre-operative cardiac evaluation. In making his determination, Ilioff followed a set of clinical guidelines (algorithms) published by the American Heart Association (AHA) in association with the American College of Cardiology (ACC). These guidelines analyze the patient’s medical conditions and history to determine whether a pre-operative cardiac evaluation is needed. Hinlicky underwent the endarterectomy operation to remove plaque buildup on her carotid artery. Although the surgery was a technical success, Hinlicky died 25 days later. The administrator of Hinlicky’s estate (the Estate) brought a malpractice action against Frank, Dreyfuss, and Riverside Associates, the medical practice of Ilioff. At trial, Ilioff testified that he had incorporated the algorithm into his practice shortly after it was published because it helped physicians decide which patients required a cardiac evaluation and which patients could proceed with surgery. Over the objection of the Estate, the algorithm was admitted into evidence. The jury found for the defendants and the appellate court affirmed. The Estate appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 582,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 582,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 582,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 32,100 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership