36 N.Y.2d 733 (1975)
When an employer provides medical services to an employee as incidental to employment, the remedy for medical malpractice by a co-employee physician is exclusively under Workers’ Compensation Law, even if some treatment occurs off the employer’s premises.
Summary
Plaintiff sued a Pepsi Cola Company physician for malpractice, alleging negligence caused the death of her husband, a Pepsi executive. The physician provided medical services to the executive as part of his employment benefits. The court held that the plaintiff’s remedy was exclusively under the Workers’ Compensation Law because the medical services were incidental to the executive’s employment. The location of the treatment (whether on or off company premises) was deemed irrelevant. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding no evidence of a private doctor-patient relationship outside of the employment context.
Facts
Ernest Golini, an executive at Pepsi Cola Company, received medical treatment from the company’s medical department, including from the defendant, a licensed physician employed by Pepsi as an associate director. Treatment occurred both at the Pepsi Cola building and at University Hospital, where the defendant treated Golini daily for almost six weeks. The defendant received a salary and benefits from Pepsi. While the defendant saw private patients in the same office, there was no evidence Golini engaged him on that basis or compensated him directly for services.
Procedural History
The plaintiff commenced the action in 1966. The lower court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division upheld the grant of summary judgment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether an employee’s remedy for medical malpractice against a co-employee physician is exclusively under the Workers’ Compensation Law when the medical services were provided as incidental to employment.
Holding
Yes, because the medical services were furnished to the decedent as incidental to his employment, making the Workers’ Compensation Law the exclusive remedy, as per Garcia v. Iserson, even if some treatment occurred off the employer’s premises.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the precedent set in Garcia v. Iserson, which held that the Workers’ Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy when an employee is injured due to the negligence of a co-employee while acting within the scope of their employment. The court emphasized that the medical services provided to Golini were incidental to his employment with Pepsi Cola. The court found no evidence to suggest that Golini and the defendant had a private doctor-patient relationship independent of Golini’s employment. The court stated that “the mere fact that, here, some of the treatment performed by defendant was not on premises of the employing concern does not alter the relationship or constitute a distinction of relevance.” The court also addressed the plaintiff’s argument that summary judgment was premature because facts were exclusively within the defendant’s knowledge, stating that the plaintiff had not shown she had been deprived of full disclosure, and therefore, the motion should not be denied on that ground.