You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S PARALYSIS, THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff’s expert failed to raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case:

… [P]laintiff alleged that if [defendants] Lougee and King had made an appropriate referral to an orthopedic specialist and monitored her condition after the referral was made, plaintiff would have received necessary surgery before she became paralyzed. … [Defendants] appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. * * *

The affidavit of plaintiff’s medical expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition inasmuch as the conclusory opinion of plaintiff’s expert that defendants’ “multiple deviations from the standard of care were a substantial contributing factor in causing [plaintiff’s injuries]” is insufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning proximate cause … . It is undisputed that treatment of a condition arising out of an issue with plaintiff’s spinal hardware is outside the scope of defendants’ practice and that referral to an orthopedic specialist … was appropriate, and plaintiff’s expert failed to identify what treatments or interventions were necessary, how defendants’ monitoring of [the orthopedic specialist] would have necessarily resulted in those treatments or interventions being performed by the specialist, and whether the timing of any such interventions would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries. Humbolt v Parmeter, 2021 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ARM-WRESTLED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED INJURY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
Neglect Finding Based on Children’s Exposure to Bloody Domestic Violence Affirmed’ Requirements for Admission of Police Reports Explained
More Sophisticated DNA Test, Ruling Out the Defendant as the Source of Semen, Was a Proper Basis for Vacating Defendant’s Conviction–Criteria Described
WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK, THE EXCESS COVERAGE CLAUSES CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT (FOURTH DEPT).
Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same Prosecutor
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION ASPECT OF HIS SENTENCE, PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO BE APPLIED TO A JURY VERDICT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AGENCY’S RATIONAL RULING MUST BE UPHELD EVEN IF THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY.

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

MOTHER’S ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE... SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER CPLR 3001 TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT...