You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS OR CONTROVERT...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS OR CONTROVERT THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address or controvert the defendant’s expert’s opinion. Plaintiff alleged her “foot drop” was caused by prescribed medication: Defendant’s expert opined the foot drop could not have been caused by the medication plaintiff took:

Defendant made a prima facie case of summary judgment through its expert who stated that there was no medical evidence that methotrexate, a drug in use since 1947, causes peripheral neuropathy or a foot drop, either alone or in combination with one of plaintiff’s other medications, and opined that foot drop would not have manifested at the single low dose of methotrexate consumed by plaintiff over the course of one day; the short period that elapsed between this consumption of the drug and the emergence of foot drop, was atypical for a drug-induced peripheral neuropathy; if plaintiff’s condition were a drug induced peripheral neuropathy, it would have resolved within weeks of the discontinuance of methotrexate and the fact that plaintiff’s condition persisted for years and did not resolve upon discontinuing methotrexate, was a presentation atypical for drug-induced peripheral neuropathy; and plaintiff’s presumed diagnosis of sarcoidosis, could be an explanation for her condition.

In opposition to defendants’ prima facie showing, plaintiff’s expert failed to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact by demonstrating that defendants’ prescription of the drug methotrexate was a “substantial factor” in causing her claimed injury of “foot drop” … . The expert failed to address or controvert many of the points made by defendants’ expert. He did not address or controvert defendant’s expert’s opinion that 5mg of methotrexate taken in one day could not cause foot drop, or, if it did, why the foot drop did not resolve within weeks of discontinuation of the medication. Plaintiff’s expert also failed to address defendant’s expert’s opinion that the more likely culprit for plaintiff’s foot drop was her presumed diagnosis of neuro-sarcoidosis, as indicated in the medical records. Camacho v Pintauro, 2022 NY Slip Op 06743, First Dept 11-29-22

Practice Point: Medical malpractice cases are battles between experts. At the summary judgment stage, if supported opinions in the defense expert’s affidavit  are not addressed or controverted by the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, defendant wins.

 

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE VALET PARKING SERVICE WITH WHICH IT CONTRACTED IF THE RESTAURANT HAD THE ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF THE CONTRACTOR, IF ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLY, AND UNDER AN AGENCY THEORY, THE RESTAURANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE; AND AN APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON ISSUES NOT RULED ON BELOW (FIRST DEPT).
LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
THE CRITERIA FOR JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL WERE NOT MET HERE (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1028 REQUIRES THAT THE COURT EXPEDITE A HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILDREN RETURNED TO HER; HERE THE HEARING WAS STARTED WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BUT WAS THEREAFTER ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS, A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT DISPLACED THE BUILDING OWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FAILING TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONDITION SAFER DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK, AFTER THE CUSTOMER’S FUNDS WERE WIRED TO THAT OTHER BANK (PURSUANT TO AN AGREED ARRANGEMENT), WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE OR UNDER A MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED THEORY FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE CHECK (FIRST 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

RESPONDENT STATE COLLEGE WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS COLLEGE MISCONDUCT... WHETHER THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS...