You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , , , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFFS-PHYSICIANS ALLEGED THE FORMS THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION (TO THE EMPLOYER) OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE DEMUTUALIZATION OF THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURER WERE INVALID (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint by physicians against their employer/malpractice-insurance-policy-administrator stated causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and mutual mistake. The dispute centers on whether the physicians or the employer which paid the malpractice insurance premiums are/is entitled to the proceeds when the insurer (MLMIC) demutualized. The employer had the physicians sign forms consenting to distributing the proceeds to the employer. The physicians allege the consent forms are invalid:

Plaintiffs allege that the forms by which they authorized MLMIC to distribute their demutualization proceeds to defendant are invalid because defendant obtained them in breach of its fiduciary duty, by fraud, or due to mutual mistake. If these forms are invalid, then the demutualization proceeds belong to plaintiffs … .

Transactions between a fiduciary and beneficiary are voidable if the fiduciary acts in its own interest and does not fully disclose all material facts … . Defendant is alleged not only to have withheld the policyholder information statement from plaintiffs, but to have significantly misrepresented their contents for its own gain. These allegations, which are not conclusively refuted by the documentary evidence, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Fraud is another basis for rescinding the consent forms … . Plaintiffs also properly allege constructive fraud, because they were owed a fiduciary duty by defendant and so were “warranted to . . . relax the care and vigilance they would ordinarily exercise in the circumstances” … . …

Mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . For the purposes of this motion to dismiss, however, it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiffs were negligent … . Cordaro v AdvantageCare Physicians, P.C., 2022 NY Slip Op 05267, First Dept 9-27-22

Practice Point: The complaint adequately alleged the employer, which also served at the medical malpractice insurance policy administrator, breached a fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiffs-physicians by requiring them to consent to the distribution (to the employer) of the proceeds of the demutualization of the medical malpractice insurance carrier. The complaint also sufficiently alleged fraud, constructive fraud and mutual-mistake causes of action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL RECORDS; DEFENDANT PODIATRIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff’s expert affidavit in this medical malpractice case did not raise a question of fact. Plaintiff’s decedent presented with burns on his foot which were treated by defendant podiatrist, Papathomas. When the wound didn’t heal, defendant podiatrist referred plaintiff’s decedent to a wound clinic, which continued the same treatment given by defendant podiatrist until an infection was later detected:

The [plaintiff’s] expert relied upon certain photographs of the decedent’s foot, which were taken by the decedent’s daughter … and which allegedly showed signs that the wound was a third-degree burn, and not a second-degree burn as diagnosed by Papathomas … . According to the plaintiff’s expert, the failure to undertake “aggressive procedures,” including debridement of necrotic tissue as seen in the photographs, “predisposed” the decedent to a wound infection, which ultimately led to the partial amputation of his right foot, the stress of which caused the decedent to suffer a heart attack and die. …

… [I]t is undisputed that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting, inter alia, the affirmation of a board-certified podiatrist, who opined within a reasonable degree of podiatric certainty that the care Papathomas rendered to the decedent was in accordance with good and accepted practice, and did not proximately cause or contribute to any injuries … . * * *

… [S]ince the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert is entirely speculative and unsupported by the decedent’s medical records, the expert’s affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Specifically, the decedent’s medical records establish that … after Papathomas observed that the decedent’s wound had not improved, Papathomas referred the decedent to a wound care clinic. … [At the wound clinic] the decedent received the same course of treatment prescribed by Papathomas. Moreover, the decedent’s medical records from his admissions to Plainview Hospital … contain no causal connection between the amputation of the decedent’s foot and his subsequent death, and the care the decedent received from Papathomas. Templeton v Papathomas, 2022 NY Slip Op 05228, Second Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: Here in this medical malpractice case, plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit was speculative and was not supported by the medical records. The affidavit, therefore, did not raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING THE DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the agreement signed by plaintiff in this medical malpractice action which required the deposition of expert witnesses 120 days before trial was void and unenforceable:

The issue on this appeal is whether the defendants Benjamin M. Schwartz, M.D., and Island Gynecologic Oncology, PLLC (hereinafter together the defendants), may enforce a provision in an agreement that the defendant physician’s receptionist asked the injured plaintiff to sign among other routine medical releases prior to undergoing surgery. Pursuant to this provision, if a patient commenced a medical malpractice action against the defendant physician, each party’s counsel would have the right to depose the other parties’ expert witness(es) at least 120 days before trial. We hold that this provision is unenforceable as against public policy and, in any event, the defendants waived the right to enforce the provision. Furthermore, the entire agreement is unenforceable because the Supreme Court found certain other provisions to be unenforceable, the defendants do not challenge the court’s holding regarding those provisions on appeal, and those provisions are not severable from the remainder of the agreement, including the provision at issue on appeal. * * *

Requiring experts to be made available for deposition 120 days before trial also directly contradicts the provision in CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) that gives trial courts the discretion to “make whatever order may be just” in the event that a party retains an expert in an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to provide appropriate notice. This statutory provision reflects the important public policy of allowing courts to retain discretion in their role as gatekeeper in determining the admissibility of expert testimony … . For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that, here, the public policy in favor of freedom of contract is overridden by these other important and countervailing public policy interests … . Mercado v Schwartz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04962, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: An agreement signed by a patient, who became a plaintiff in this medical malpractice action, which required the deposition of expert witnesses 120 days before trial is void and unenforceable as against the policy underlying the expert disclosure provisions of the CPLR.

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PRIOR TO APRIL 2013 AS TIME-BARRED WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT ARGUING THAT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUPPORTED APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND THE MATTER SHOULD PROCEED TO DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply and defendants’ motion to dismiss allegations of medical malpractice occurring before April 9, 2013, was properly granted. The decision is detailed and fact-specific and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Accepting the plaintiff’s expansive view that the mere status of receiving treatment for menopausal symptoms necessarily encompasses all conditions related to menopause and aging, would undermine the sound policy reasons behind the continuous treatment doctrine … . Such a result is contrary to the foundational policy reasons for creating the continuous treatment doctrine, and could result in expanding it to virtually all the medical care a patient receives … . * * *

From the dissent:

The Supreme Court’s determination, endorsed by my colleagues in the majority, that the records submitted by the defendants never reference or address osteoporosis is, in fact, belied by those medical records created and submitted by the defendants, which document, inter alia, that, during the relevant period, the defendants assessed, treated, and monitored the plaintiff’s bone health, despite their failure to order a bone density test.

In sum, the majority’s characterization of certain of the defendants’ own documents fails to afford the plaintiff the favorable view through which the documents should be read … . Moreover, no discovery has been conducted yet, and “[t]he resolution of the continuous treatment issue . . . should abide relevant discovery” … . Weinstein v Gewirtz, 2022 NY Slip Op 04997, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the pre-discovery motion to dismiss medical malpractice causes of action as time-barred was affirmed. The dissenter argued the defendants’ own documents demonstrated the possible applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine and the matter should proceed to discovery.

 

, , ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASPIRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED AS TREATMENT FOR STROKE WAS RAISED IN A DEPOSITION (BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS) ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. The was conflicting expert-opinion evidence about whether plaintiff should have been administered aspirin as treatment for a stroke. Although the aspirin-issue was first raised in opposition to defendants’ motions, the issue had been raised in a deposition and was therefore properly raised in the opposition papers:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether Nandakumar departed from the accepted standard of care in his neurological evaluation and treatment of the injured plaintiff’s condition by failing to timely order and administer aspirin to the injured plaintiff, and whether such alleged departures proximately caused her alleged injuries … . Although the plaintiffs’ theory regarding the administration of aspirin was not specifically alleged in the complaint or bill of particulars, this theory was referred to by the plaintiffs’ counsel when deposing a … resident, and thus, was appropriately raised in opposition to [defendant’s] motion … . Walker v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 04996, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where there are conflicting expert opinions. Here, whether aspirin should have bean administrated to treat stroke was raised in a deposition, but not in the complaint or bill of particulars. Because it was raised in a deposition, it was properly raised in opposition to the defendants’ summary judgment motions.

 

, ,

THE ACTION, WHICH STEMMED FROM PLAINTIFF’S BEING DROPPED IN THE DELIVERY ROOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER BIRTH, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action, which stemmed from being dropped in the delivery room immediately after birth in 1999, sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence, and was therefore time-barred:

CPLR 208 provides that the statute of limitations is tolled throughout the period of infancy, but limits such toll to 10 years in medical malpractice actions … . In determining whether conduct should be deemed medical malpractice or ordinary negligence, the critical factor is the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant is alleged to have breached … . A negligent act or omission by a health care provider that constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician to a particular patient constitutes medical malpractice … .

Here, the defendant established … the conduct at issue derived from the duty owed to plaintiff by the defendant as a result of the physician-patient relationship and was substantially related to the plaintiff’s medical treatment … . Rojas v Tandon, 2022 NY Slip Op 04989, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The infancy toll of the statute of limitations in CPLR 208 is limited to ten years in medical malpractice cases. Here plaintiff alleged she was dropped in the delivery room immediately after birth in 1999. The action would have been timely if it sounded in negligence. But the action was deemed to sound in medical malpractice rendering it time-barred.

 

, , ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY EACH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENDANT MEDICAL CENTER TO SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not obligated to provide the name of every negligent employee of the defendant Erie County Medical Center Corporation (ECMC) to survive summary judgment in this medical malpractice action:

Contrary to the court’s determination, plaintiff was not required to provide the name of every allegedly negligent actor engaging in conduct within the scope of employment for ECMC … inasmuch as ECMC was on notice of the claims against it based on the allegations in the amended complaint, as amplified by plaintiff’s bill of particulars to ECMC, noting failures and omissions by ECMC’s employees. Indeed, ECMC is in the best position to identify its own employees and contractors and, as the creator of decedent’s medical records, ECMC had notice of who treated decedent and of any allegations of negligence by its nursing staff.  Braxton v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04866, Fourth Dept 8-4-22

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff was not required to identify each allegedly negligent employee of the medical center to survive summary judgment.

 

, ,

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.

 

, ,

WHERE THE EMPLOYER OF A PHYSICIAN HAS PAID THE PREMIUMS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY DEMUTUALIZES, ABSENT AN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THE PROCEEDS GO TO THE PHYSICIAN, NOT THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court based on a recent Court of Appeals ruling, determined the proceeds from the demutualization of a medical malpractice insurer belong to the physician, not to the physician’s employer (the plaintiff here):

The Court of Appeals has recently held that “when an employer pays premiums to a mutual insurance company to obtain a policy of which its employee is the policyholder, and the insurance company demutualizes, absent contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement, the policyholder is entitled to the proceeds from the demutualization” … .

… [D]efendant is entitled to the demutualization proceeds. There is no evidence of any contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement. In fact, defendant’s employment agreement provides that “[t]he Employer agrees that it will pay or reimburse the Employee for that portion of such insurance premiums that are attributable to the period coinciding with the Term [of employment].” Plaintiff … acknowledged … that it paid the insurance premiums “as a fringe benefit to the Physician employee.” … .

It is irrelevant that plaintiff, who is not listed as the policy administrator in the policy, paid the policy premiums during the relevant period and acted as the policy administrator … . Mid-Manhattan Physician Servs., P.C. v Dworkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 04523, First Dept 7-12-22

​Similar issues and result in Sullivan v Northwell Health, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04525, First Dept 7-12-22

​Practice Point: Where the employer of a physician has paid the premiums for medical malpractice insurance and the insurance company demutualizes, absent an agreement to the contrary, the proceeds go to the physician, not the employer.

 

, ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED DISMISSAL OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING THE ALLEGED PREMATURE DISCHARGE OF PLAINTIFF FROM EMERGENCY CARE AFTER SHE EXPERIENCED SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s medical malpractice causes of action against the doctor who discharged her from emergency care and the hospital should not have been dismissed because the expert affidavits presented conflicting opinions. Plaintiff experienced symptoms consistent with a stroke and went to the hospital. An MRI was done but plaintiff was released before a final review of the MRI. Evidence of a stroke was ultimately found on the MRI. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the event which caused plaintiff to go to the hospital was a transient ischemic attack (TIA), not a stroke, and that the stroke occurred at the hospital about when the MRI was performed:

… [B]y submitting the affidavit of their expert, [plaintiffs] raised an issue of fact on the issue whether Dr. Kandel deviated from the standard of care … . Dr. Kandel permitted plaintiff to leave the hospital before her brain MRI had undergone a final review by a neuroradiologist. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that discharging plaintiff before a final review of the scans was complete constituted a deviation from the standard of care in light of plaintiff’s medical history, which indicated a significant stroke risk.

… [P]laintiffs raised a question of fact with respect to causation … . The hospital defendants relied upon the affirmation of Dr. Kandel’s medical expert, who opined that any alleged negligence is not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries inasmuch as plaintiff suffered a stroke at or before 3 a.m. on October 27, and that the window in which to administer tPA, an anti-clot medication, had closed long before plaintiff arrived at the hospital for treatment approximately 13 hours later. … [P]laintiffs submitted an expert affidavit asserting … that the symptoms plaintiff experienced on the morning of October 27 were the result of a transient ischemic attack (TIA), which results in temporary stroke-like symptoms but does not result in a blockage, and that she did not experience the actual blockage until sometime later in the day, around the time of her brain MRI. Plaintiffs’ expert further opined that, had plaintiff stayed at the hospital overnight and had the MRI been read correctly, tPA could have been administered when plaintiff’s new symptoms presented. Clark v Rachfal, 2022 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 7-8-22

Practice Point: Conflicting expert opinions preclude summary judgment in medical malpractice actions.

 

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