You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ON THE TREATMENT PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT MEDICAL ONCOLOGIST; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OWED PLAINITFF A DUTY OF CARE, A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the summary judgment motion by one of plaintiff’s treating physicians was properly granted in this medical malpractice case. Neither of plaintiff’s experts was qualified to assess the defendant medical oncologist’s (Hindenberg’s) care of plaintiff. Therefore the expert affidavits did not demonstrate defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (Petillo), which is a question of law for the court:

… [I]n order to reach any discussion[s] about deviation from accepted medical practice, it is necessary first to establish the existence of a duty”… . “‘Although physicians owe a general duty of care to their patients, that duty may be limited to those medical functions undertaken by the physician and relied on by the patient'” … . “The existence and scope of a physician’s duty of care is a question of law to be determined by the court” … . * * *

Petillo’s internal medicine and infectious disease expert failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist … . The expert did not claim to have any skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology. While the expert gave an opinion that Hindenburg departed from the standards of care applicable to internal medicine, Petillo was not referred to Hindenburg as an internist and Hindenburg did not treat Petillo as an internist, rendering the standard of care for an internist inapplicable.

Petillo’s surgical oncologist expert also failed to lay the requisite foundation to render an opinion on Hindenburg’s actions as a medical oncologist. This expert, a board-certified surgeon who practices in the field of surgical oncology, a specialty distinct from medical oncology, failed to establish that he had the skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field of medical oncology sufficient to provide a foundation to opine on the clinical standard of care and departures of a medical oncologist. Abruzzi v Maller, 2023 NY Slip Op 05704, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Before an expert can offer an admissible opinion on the care provided by a doctor in a medical malpractice case, the expert must demonstrate he or she is qualified to assess the care provided by the defendant doctor, here a medical oncologist. The failure to demonstrate the necessary qualifications to assess the care provided by the defendant specialist, constituted the failure to demonstrate the defendant doctor owed a duty to the plaintiff, a question of law for the court.

 

You might also like
LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE UCC REQUIREMENTS NOT MET, PROOF OF RPAPL 1304 NOTICE INSUFFICIENT, PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE CONDITION OF THE MORTGAGE INSUFFICIENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS REQUIRED; HERE THE BANK FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT SENT RPAPL 1304 NOTICES ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
GRIEVANCE FILED AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE DISTRICT’S STARTING A PLENARY ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER UNDER A FAITHLESS SERVANT THEORY WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S THEORY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL LITERATURE, THE THEORY HAD AN OBJECTIVE BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AFTER A FRYE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Demonstrate When Plaintiff Should Have First Become Aware of Fraudulent Conveyance Precluded Dismissal on Statute of Limitations Grounds​
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF A GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION POLICY DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (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

THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S... THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT; HERE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST...