You are here: / / IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS...
, ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND RELIED ON A DISPUTED FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice actions should not have been granted. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent was not properly treated for a stroke. The defendants’ experts did not address all the allegations in the bills of particulars and relied on a disputed fact:

… [T]he expert physician for the defendants …, failed to address all of the specific allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars … . Because [the] affirmation relied upon a disputed fact, specifically that the decedent’s condition was improving … , it was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that.[defendants] did not deviate or depart from accepted medical practice or that such deviation or departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … . Hiegel v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 04434, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice action, at the summary judgment stage, the defense experts must address all the allegations in the bill of particulars and may not rely on facts which are disputed.

 

You might also like
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status
DISCOVERY STATUTE MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) STATUS HAD DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS NOT FAILED TO FILE AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL AND REQUEST A HEARING WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (A) (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH (UNNECESSARILY) INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THE PEOPLE TO MEET THAT BURDEN.
NO EVIDENCE THREE WEAPONS IN A SAFE WERE POSSESSED BY THREE SEPARATE ACTS, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT, DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIS MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION, SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE HE COMMITTED HIS SECOND OFFENSE BEFORE HE WAS SENTENCED FOR HIS FIRST OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT’S DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO MODIFY HIS SORA RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING VIOLATED THE CORRECTION LAW (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

ALTHOUGH THE STATE HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT INMATES FROM ASSAULTS BY OTHER INMATES,... THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY...