| Popkave v Ramapo Radiology Assoc., P.C. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08053 [44 AD3d 920] |
| October 23, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Teri Popkave, Appellant, v Ramapo Radiology Associates,P.C., et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Rende, Ryan & Downes, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Roland T. Koke of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Berliner, J.), entered April 20, 2006, which,upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against her, dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in refusing to preclude one of the defendants' medical experts from testifying on theground that his testimony varied from the expert witness statement served before trial(see CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; McGlauflin v Wadhwa, 265 AD2d 534 [1999]). Theprincipal issues in the case involved whether the plaintiff's breast cancer was present anddetectable in a mammogram taken in 2002, and whether, given the absence of clinical symptomsat that time, and a comparison with prior mammograms, the defendant Dr. Victor Todisco'sfinding of no abnormality in the 2002 mammogram was a departure from good and acceptedmedical practice. Upon review of the trial record, we find that the expert's testimony with respectto those issues was fully consistent with the pretrial disclosure statement. Moreover, anyadditional testimony the witness gave regarding the plaintiff's social history and the causes ofbreast cancer in general either was of collateral significance or constituted general backgroundinformation, which did not render the pretrial disclosure statement inadequate or misleading, anddid not result in prejudice or surprise to the [*2]plaintiff (see Casimir v Bar-Zvi, 36 AD3d578 [2007]; Suhr v Long BeachMed. Ctr., 35 AD3d 440 [2006]; Gagliardotto v Huntington Hosp., 25 AD3d 758 [2006];Andaloro v Town of Ramapo, 242 AD2d 354 [1997]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.Schmidt, J.P., Fisher, Lifson and Carni, JJ., concur.