The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the the temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing defendant dialysis provider from stopping plaintiff’s treatment should not have been vacated and plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction should have been denied without a hearing. The dialysis provider, Avantus, wanted to discontinue treatment because of plaintiff’s behavior. However the evidence of plaintiff’s behavior was sharply conflicting:
… [T]he motion court had found that Avantus had not produced evidence showing that it had complied with any of the federal procedural requirements for terminating a patient’s care. Defendants had not presented any new evidence that it had done so before the court issued the order presently on appeal. Indeed, the court did not address the merits of defendants’ decision to terminate plaintiff’s care at all. Accordingly, the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing.
The motion court also improperly vacated the TRO without a hearing. Plaintiff’s showing that he would be irreparably injured in the absence of a TRO never changed. The court was presented with no evidence inconsistent with its finding in issuing the TRO that “there is no dispute that dialysis is a life-saving measure which plaintiff sorely needs, and at this stage of the litigation, the defendants have not established that the reasons for plaintiff’s discharge from the facility outweigh the risks that discharge would carry with regard to plaintiff’s health.”
In addition, although the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditions set forth in the TRO, the parties presented sharply divergent facts on that issue, which could not be resolved without a hearing. Wilder v Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06054, First Dept 8-7-19