You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE AND PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS, THE DOCTOR’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the medical malpractice action against defendant Dr. Dietz and his employer should have been granted because plaintiff’s expert did not raise a question of fact about whether the alleged departure from the standard of care had a causal relationship with the plaintiff’s injury. The majority concluded the expert’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a question of fact with respect a second defendant, Dr. Pedersen, but the dissent argued the affidavit with respect to Dr. Pedersen was conclusory and did not demonstrate a causal relationship:

… [P]laintiff’s expert did not opine that Dr. Dietz caused the iliac vein injury and instead opined that Dr. Dietz deviated from the standard of care by insufficiently examining or testing the iliac vein following Dr. Pedersen’s repair. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert did not indicate the possible results of any such examination or testing, whether those results should have prompted a different course of treatment, or how Dr. Dietz’s alleged departure from the standard of care otherwise caused plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to causation regarding Dr. Dietz … . Dickinson v Bassett Healthcare, 2019 NY Slip Op 04610, Fourth Dept 6-7-19

 

You might also like
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHO ALLEGEDLY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT, IT WAS AN IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DELAY THE DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT UNTIL THE TRIAL OR DISPOSITION OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE NON-DEFAULTING DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL.
Where the Manufacturer Was Not At Fault in a Products Liability Action, the Retailer Is Not Entitled to Indemnification for the Costs of Defending the Action from the Manufacturer
Procedure for Invalidation of a Stipulation to the Record
SENTENCING COURT DID NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING, MATTER SENT BACK, BECAUSE THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE IS IMPLICATED THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY TERMINATING IT WITHOUT GIVING PLAINTIFF THE TIME TO CURE DEFICIENCIES CALLED FOR IN THE CONTRACT (FOURTH DEPT).
Hearing Ordered to Reconstruct Contents of Missing Recording of 911 Call

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

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILD, THE... PORTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS’ APPRAISAL REPORT IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING...