You are here: / Medical Malpractice
,

THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1” MINUTE TO ADDRESS SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE, BUT A NURSE MISTAKENLY PROGRAMMED THE MACHINE TO ADMINISTER THE MEDICATION FOR “11” MINUTES; THE ACTION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled this case sounded in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence, and explained the difference. Plaintiff had been given the wrong dosage of tPA upon arrival at the hospital to address symptoms of a stroke. Due to a mistake, the machine was programmed to administer a quantity of the drug for “11” minutes, instead of the “1” minute ordered by the doctor. The mistake was noticed after three minutes:

… [T]he case is one of medical malpractice only. “Conduct may be deemed malpractice, rather than negligence, when it constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician” … . “The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts” … . As relevant here, plaintiffs’ claims are based upon allegations that defendants acted negligently in their medical care and treatment of plaintiff — i.e., defendants’ actions or omissions with respect to the proper dosing of tPA, the progression of the stroke with or without the proper administration of tPA, the medical benefits and risks of tPA based on the proper or improper administration of the medication, and the potential loss of the opportunity to attain tPA’s benefits based on its improper administration. Although it is undisputed that a nurse inadvertently mis-administered the tPA by erroneously programming the pump, she was assisting the physician by administering the prescribed medication and was an integral part of the process of rendering medical treatment to the patient. The nurse’s error does not transform this case to one of simple negligence rather than medical malpractice … . Holland v Cayuga Med. Ctr. at Ithaca, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03896, Third Dept 6-17-21

 

, , ,

THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS NURSING-HOME MALPRACTICE CASE, BUT THE JUDGE DID NOT FIRST DETERMINE PLAINTIFF HAD SOME LEVEL OF COGNITIVE AWARENESS; THE CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING CRITERIA ARE THE SAME FOR MALPRACTICE AND FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 2801-D; NEW DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated the $2.5 million pain and suffering award in this nursing-home malpractice case because the jury was instructed on the elements of “conscious” pain and suffering, but the judge did not first determine plaintiff had some level of cognitive awareness. The suit alleged the nursing home’s failure to monitor plaintiff-resident’s blood sugar level led to brain injury and death. A new trial on damages was ordered. The First Department noted that the criteria for “conscious pain and suffering” damages is the same for malpractice and violation of Public Health Law 2801-d:

The court should not have allowed the jury to award damages for pain and suffering without first determining that the decedent “experienced some level of cognitive awareness following the injury”… . There is no legal basis for applying this rule in the general negligence/malpractice context but not in the context of a violation of PHL 2801-d. Although PHL 2801-d(4) provides that “[t]he remedies provided in this section are in addition to and cumulative with any other remedies available to a patient, . . . including tort causes of action, and may be granted regardless of whether such other remedies are available or are sought,” this language has been interpreted as authorizing a separate cause of action, not a separate category of damages … . Smith v Northern Manhattan Nursing Home, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03818, First Dept 6-15-21

 

, ,

THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the medical malpractice action against Dr. Drummond, a first-year resident, should have been dismissed because he did not exercise any independent medical judgement but merely followed the direction of his supervisors when medication was discontinued:

Defendants met their initial burden on the motion by presenting the affidavit of an expert who opined that, as a first-year resident, Dr. Drummond could not and did not make any medical decisions independently and that he properly wrote the discharge instruction to discontinue the medication only after discussing and confirming that decision with the appropriate supervisors, a practice that complied with the applicable standard of care … . Defendants also submitted the deposition testimony of Drs. Drummond and Bath, which established that Dr. Drummond consulted with Dr. Bath prior to decedent’s discharge and confirmed with him that the decision had been made to discontinue the medication. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Based on that conclusion, we likewise agree with defendants that the court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against Kaleida Health insofar as the complaint asserts a claim of vicarious liability based on the alleged conduct of Dr. Drummond … . Bieger v Kaleida Health Sys., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03772, Fourth Dept 6-11-21

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF THE VENOGRAM USED TO DIAGNOSE A BLOCKAGE IN A VEIN IN DEFENDANT’S LEG; PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted, and the application for sanctions for spoliation of evidence should not have been denied. The doctors claimed to no longer have possession of a venogram used to diagnose the blockage of a vein:

… [T]he plaintiff sufficiently established that the defendant doctors lost or destroyed the venogram imaging. The record demonstrates that it was the defendant doctors’ regular practice to record the results of venograms, that the defendant doctors had recorded the plaintiff’s other tests, and that the defendant doctors offered no explanation for the absence of the venogram imaging … . Moreover, the plaintiff established that the venogram imaging was relevant and necessary to the prosecution of the action. Contrary to the defendant doctors’ contention, the handwritten notation on the plaintiff’s treatment notes indicating the results of the venogram was not an adequate substitute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s application to impose sanctions on the defendant doctors to the extent of directing an adverse inference charge against those defendants at trial with regard to the missing evidence … . Loccisano v Ascher, 2021 NY Slip Op 03451, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, ,

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).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence offered by plaintiff’s treating physician (Paget) as expert opinion should not have been precluded after a Frye hearing, despite the absence of medical literature on the topic. Plaintiff alleged a contrast agent was negligently injected into the tissue of her arm instead of a vein:

The plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure indicated that Paget was expected to testify that the defendants deviated from good and accepted medical practice in allowing gadolinium, a toxin, to leak into and remain inside the plaintiff’s arm in high concentration, which caused the plaintiff to develop injuries including a progressive fibrosing disease. … * * *

Although Paget did not rely upon medical literature unequivocally establishing that the administration of gadolinium into tissue has a causal link to the development of a systemic fibrosing disease in the absence of renal insufficiency, the plaintiff established that Paget’s theory “had an objective basis and was founded upon far more than theoretical speculation or a scientific hunch”… . The absence of medical literature directly on point pertains to the weight to be afforded to Paget’s testimony, but does not preclude its admissibility … . Farrell v Lichtenberger, 2021 NY Slip Op 03305, Second Dept 5-26-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants should not have been awarded summary judgment on the medical malpractice and lack of informed consent causes of action:

The affidavit of the defendants’ expert failed to address and rebut the specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the complaint and bill of particulars … , and failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether [defendant doctor] properly performed the transrectal biopsy procedure and properly discharged the plaintiff despite his repeated complaints of bleeding from his rectum, and whether these alleged departures from good and accepted medical practice were a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

“The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … .

… [T]he defendants failed to submit proof sufficient to establish … that the plaintiff was informed of the reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, or that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed … . Huichun Feng v Accord Physicians, PLLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 03024, Second Dept 5-12-21

 

, ,

THE LANGUAGE IN THE HIPAA FORM, INDICATING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN MAY BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEAK WITH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly approved language in the HIPAA form informing plaintiff’s physicians that they may but are not obligated to speak with defendant’s attorney:

Defendant offered … to accept revised authorizations that included the following language:

“the purpose of the requested interview with the physician is solely to assist defense counsel at trial. The physician is not obligated to speak with defense counsel prior to trial. The interview is voluntary.”

… [D]efendant moved … to compel plaintiff to provide revised authorizations. The court granted the motion … , directing plaintiff … to provide revised HIPAA-compliant authorizations containing defendant’s proposed language, unemphasized and in the same size font as the rest of the authorization. * * *

Here, the wording that was approved by the court is identical to the wording that previously met with the approval of the Second Department in Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp. Ctr. (65 AD3d 176, 178 [2d Dept 2009]), it is similar to the language contained in the [Office of Court Administration’s] standard form, and there is no dispute that it is consistent with the applicable law. Sims v Reyes, 2021 NY Slip Op 02971, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff demonstrated the emergency room exception applied and defendant hospital could be held vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice an independent surgeon:

In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for the negligence or malpractice of an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself or herself … . However, as an exception to this rule, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the acts of independent physicians if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician … .

Here, the plaintiff satisfied her prima facie burden of demonstrating that the emergency room exception applies by producing evidence that the decedent was brought to the Hospital’s emergency room by ambulance, did not request treatment by a particular physician, and was assigned to Reichman’s care by the Hospital … . Goffredo v St. Luke’s Cornwall Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02788, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SEEKING RECOVERY OF THE COSTS OF CARING FOR A SEVERELY DISABLED CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ medical malpractice action seeking recovery of the expenses of caring for their severely disable child should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to properly diagnose the child’s conditions in utero and failed to advise plaintiffs of their options:

Parents may maintain a cause of action on their own behalf for the extraordinary costs incurred in raising a child with a disability … . “To succeed on such a cause of action, which ‘sound[s] essentially in negligence or medical malpractice,’ [a plaintiff] ‘must demonstrate the existence of a duty, the breach of which may be considered the proximate cause of the damages suffered by’ [the injured party]” … . “Specifically, the parents must establish that malpractice by a defendant physician deprived them of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy within the legally permissible time period, or that the child would not have been conceived but for the defendant’s malpractice” … . “[T]he claimed damages cannot be based on mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise, and, when sought in the form of extraordinary expenses related to caring for a disabled child, must be necessitated by and causally connected to the child’s condition” … . “Since the plaintiffs’ recovery is limited to their personal pecuniary loss, expenses covered by other sources such as private insurance or public programs are not recoverable” … . Vasiu v Berg, 2021 NY Slip Op 01798, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

, ,

GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD BEEN REMOVED YEARS BEFORE; THE DOCTORS APPARENTLY DID NOT REVIEW THE AVAIABLE MEDICAL RECORDS; THE RADIOLOGIST DID NOT DISCOVER THAT THE GALLBLADDER WAS ABSENT; THE DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment which had been awarded to an internist (Patil), a surgeon (Jung), and a radiologist (Opsha). Plaintiff underwent gallbladder surgery, but her gallbladder had already been removed. The medical record reflected the prior removal:

The plaintiff’s expert opined that Patil departed from the accepted standard of care and contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries by failing to review the plaintiff’s medical records maintained by SIPP, which indicated that the plaintiff previously had her gallbladder removed. …

At his deposition, Jung testified that, before the surgery, he was not aware that the plaintiff had a previous cholecystectomy and became aware that “[t]here was no gallbladder” … surgery. He admitted that he “looked at” Patil’s notes and reviewed the ultrasound report. Further, although he had access to [the] medical records, he did not recall if he reviewed the plaintiff’s medical chart prior to the surgery, but “might have looked at something.” Jung admitted that, other than the primary care physician’s report and the radiological report, it was “not routine” for him to “look into other documents and charts for a patient.” …

Opsha’s expert failed to explain the basis for his conclusion as to how Opsha detected a gallbladder in his review of the ultrasound and made findings in his report regarding the plaintiff’s gallbladder when that organ had been removed years earlier … . Ruiz v Opsha, 2021 NY Slip Op 01796, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

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