You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT LAY A FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff was treated by an ophthalmologist for eye pain. The doctor suspected glaucoma. Six months later plaintiff was diagnosed with meningioma, a noncancerous tumor of the membranes surrounding the brain. Plaintiff’s expert did not lay a foundation for an opinion that the meningioma could have been treated with radiation, rather than surgery, had it been discovered earlier:

” While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field . . . the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable'” … . “Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who was board certified in ophthalmology, was qualified to, and did, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether [defendants] deviated from the accepted standard of care in failing to refer the plaintiff to a neurologist to further evaluate his symptoms. However, the affidavit was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff’s meningioma could have been treated by radiation instead of surgery if it had been detected in November 2014. The plaintiff’s expert failed to articulate that he had any training in the treatment of meningiomas or what, if anything, he did to familiarize himself with the applicable standard of care. The affidavit, therefore, lacked probative value and failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any departure from the accepted standard of care proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . Simpson v Edghill, 2019 NY Slip Op 00923, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION WHICH PUSHED HIS CAR INTO DEFENDANT’S CAR WHICH WAS PARKED ALONG THE CURB IN VIOLATION OF PARKING REGULATIONS; THE LOCATION OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTIONS FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Naming an Entity Other than the Lender as Mortgagee Did Not Render the Mortgage Null and Void
Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT STOPPED BEFORE ENTERING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE.
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE TRIPPED ON A TWIG ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH WAS NOT ADEQUATELY ILLUMINATED; DEFENDANT, IN HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITIONS OR THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FOR-CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF VIDEOTAPE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CRUMBLING...