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
WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT; THE CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
INSURED’S FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED RELIEVED THE INSURER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PURCHASED 75% OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER, SOUGHT PARTITION AND SALE; DEFENDANT, WHOSE MOTHER HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, OWNED THE REMAINING 25%; UNDER THE UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT (UPHPA), PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN GOOD FAITH, BUT DID NOT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT STORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THE PAINT USED ON THE PARKING LOT SURFACE BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET AND WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PEDESTRIAN-TRAFFIC AREAS (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN, AFTER CONSUMING ALCOHOL, HE DOVE INTO A SHALLOW PART OF DEFENDANT’S POOL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...