You are here: / / WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE...
, ,

WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Although the hospital made out a prima facie case with expert evidence, the plaintiff produced conflicting expert evidence:

On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice, the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries  … . In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars … . If the defendant makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, but only as to those elements on which the defendant met its prima facie burden of proof … .

Here, [defendant] Brookhaven met its initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the first cause of action by submitting an expert’s affirmation establishing that the diagnostic testing and consultations performed by its personnel were, within a reasonable medical certainty, appropriate and within prevailing standards of practice. In opposition, however, the plaintiff’s expert opined that the delay in performing and reviewing the second CT scan …, constituted a departure from prevailing standards of care. Where, as here, the parties submit conflicting medical expert opinions, summary judgment is not appropriate … . Sheppard v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 03097, Second Dept 4-24-18

 

You might also like
THE CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING THE IMPOSITION OF A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST TO PREVENT UNJUST ENRICHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WIFE ENTERED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING PAYMENTS BY HER EX-HUSBAND; AFTER HER EX-HUSBAND’S DEATH HIS CHILDREN ALLEGEDLY EMPTIED THE ESTATE OF ASSETS, THEREBY PREVENTING THE FULFILLMENT OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE REOPENED THE NEGLECT HEARING WHEN MOTHER ARRIVED AT COURT SHORTLY AFTER SUMMATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE PLEADINGS (SECOND DEPT).
Appeal Rendered Academic by Failure to Move for a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal
THE MERE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; EXPLICIT NOTICE OF DE-ACCELERATION IS REQUIRED EITHER IN THE MOTION TO DISCONTINUE ITSELF OR IN A SEPARATE NOTICE; THEREFORE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Who Objected to the Amount of Restitution at Sentencing Was Entitled to a Hearing Even Though the Restitution-Amount Was (Apparently) Specified in the Plea Agreement
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS MISNAMED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WAS TIMELY SERVED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH THE CORRECT NAME, ALTHOUGH SERVED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED AND FILED NUNC PRO TUNC (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INSPECTION WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED THE LATENT DEFECT, A SNOW COVERED HOLE... PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND...