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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Falkovsky’s) motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. Although the doctor made out a prima facie case demonstrating there was no departure form good and accepted medical malpractice, plaintiff’s expert raised questions of fact about whether defendant should have considered cardiac disease in his differential diagnosis:

[Plaintiff] presented to Falkovsky … with complaints of loss of taste and appetite for two weeks, the unintentional loss of ten pounds, and two episodes of dizziness and vomiting that resolved on their own. During a follow up visit on March 17, 2015, Falkovsky noted … that blood work had revealed that the decedent had anemia. Falkovsky believed the cause of the decedent’s symptoms was most likely a neoplasm, and referred the decedent to a gastroenterologist and a nephrologist. On March 19, 2015, the decedent was examined by a nephrologist, who noted … that the decedent had lower extremity edema. The decedent underwent an endoscopy with his gastroenterologist on March 25, 2015, which revealed … reflux and gastritis. A renal sonogram performed on April 11, 2015, showed that the decedent had a right renal cyst and a possible angeomyolipoma. The decedent died on April 16, 2015. An autopsy revealed that the decedent died as a result of atherosclerotic and hypertensive cardiovascular disease. * * *

… [T]he opinions of the plaintiff’s expert were not speculative and conclusory … . The plaintiff’s expert opined, inter alia, that Falkovsky departed from the standard of care by failing to include cardiac disease in his differential diagnosis based upon the decedent’s symptoms in light of his medical history, and failing to order proper tests or to refer the decedent to a cardiologist for cardiac-related tests, which resulted in a lack of proper treatment that could have prevented the decedent’s death. Shirley v Falkovsky, 2022 NY Slip Op 04659, Second Dept 7-20-22

Practice Point: A conclusory or speculative expert affidavit will not raise a question of fact in a medical malpractice case. Here plaintiff’s expert opined that defendant doctor should have considered cardiac disease in his differential diagnosis, based on plaintiff’s symptoms, which included swelling of the lower extremities. Plaintiff died from his cardiac disease. Supreme Court should not have found plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit to have been speculative and conclusory and therefore should not have granted the doctor’s motion for summary judgment.

 

You might also like
COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION.
IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT REJECT AN UNTIMELY ANSWER SUBMITTED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT OR STIPULATION, OBJECTION TO THE ANSWER AS UNTIMELY IS WAIVED (SECOND DEPT).
SIDEWALK RISE OF A LITTLE OVER AN INCH WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW A MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE WHEN IT WAS SENT, IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VERSION OF THE STATUTE IN EFFECT WHEN THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL HAD NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES HE WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, THEREFORE THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF PRO SE WAS NOT VALID.
THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO WATER INSIDE A BUILDING TRACKED IN DURING A RAIN STORM (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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED... INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE INADVERTENTLY SLAPPED A DISPLAY CASE IN...