You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , ,

STATEMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SIGNED AN “AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE” FORM BEFORE REFUSING TREATMENT WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN MEDICAL RECORDS AND IN THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS BUSINESS RECORDS, AS ADMISSIONS, AS DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST, OR PURSUANT TO THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice case, determined the statements in the medical records and in depositions that plaintiff’s decedent signed an “against medical advice” (AMA) form and refused admission to the hospital constituted inadmissible hearsay and were not admissible pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute (CPLR 4519):

The defendants argue that the entries in the … Hospital records were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Generally, “[a] hearsay entry in a hospital record is admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule if the entry is germane to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient” (… see CPLR 4518[a]). However, “where the source of the information on the hospital or doctor’s record is unknown, the record is inadmissible” … . This is because “‘each participant in the chain producing the record, from the initial declarant to the final entrant, must be acting within the course of regular business conduct or the declaration must meet the test of some other hearsay exception'” … . Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, because the record does not reflect that the source of the information in the entries was known, it cannot be established whether the source had a duty to make the statement or whether some other hearsay exception applied … . …

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the deposition testimony of {the doctors] was admissible. Pursuant to CPLR 4519, otherwise known as the Dead Man’s Statute, “[u]pon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his [or her] own behalf or interest . . . against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his [or her] own behalf, of the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication.” Here, both [doctors] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute …. Moreover, they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 06504, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT SURGEON’S TESTIMONY DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HABIT EVIDENCE; THEREFORE THE DEFENSE EXPERT, WHO RELIED ON THE INSUFFICIENT HABIT EVIDENCE, DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; EVEN IF SUFFICIENT, HABIT EVIDENCE ONLY RAISES AN INFERENCE FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER, IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH WHAT PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AS A MATTER OF LAW; NEW EVIDENCE RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined: (1) the defendant surgeon’s (Dr. Fielding’s) testimony did not meet the criteria for habit or custom evidence; (2) habit evidence, even when sufficient, gives the jury the basis for an inference, but does not demonstrate what was done as a matter of law; and (3) a new theory raised in the reply papers should not have been considered. Dr. Fielding had no independent recollection of the operation on plaintiff. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In order to lay a foundation for [the] admission [of habit evidence], Dr. Fielding needed to establish that the practice of palpitating the bowel for perforations was routinely done by him in his open bariatric surgeries, and that it did not vary from patient to patient. He did not do so. He failed to offer testimony or provide any other proof regarding the number of times he had followed such a procedure during the hundreds of bariatric surgeries he had performed … . Nor did Dr. Fielding describe the LAP-Band procedure as being routine, without variation from patient to patient. Since Dr. Fielding did not lay a proper evidentiary foundation for his testimony based on custom and practice, and the expert’s opinion was made in reliance on that testimony, defendants did not satisfy their burden of proving a prima facie case entitling them to summary judgment … . …

… [E]ven if an appropriate foundation was laid for the habit testimony that defendants’ expert relied on, the motion for summary judgment still should have been denied. Where habit evidence is admitted, it only establishes that the claimed behavior or conduct was persistent and repeated in similar circumstances … . Evidence of habit only provides a basis for the jury to draw an inference, but it cannot be the basis for judgment as a matter of law … . Guido v Fielding, 2020 NY Slip Op 06391, First Dept 11-10-20

 

, , , ,

THE ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT SURGEONS PERFORMED A CHIROPRACTIC PROCEDURE DURING SPINAL FUSION SURGERY SOUNDED IN BATTERY, NOT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A CHIROPRACTOR, WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER AN OPINION ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s allegation the defendant doctors derotated her pelvis (a chiropractic procedure) during spine fusion surgery sounded in battery, not medical malpractice, because the claim alleged intentional, not negligent, conduct. Therefore the one-year statute of limitations applied and the action was time-barred. Plaintiff’s expert, a chiropractor, was not qualified to offer an opinion about the surgery performed by the defendants:

… [A]ny claim that defendants derotated plaintiff’s pelvis as a separate procedure from the surgery to which she consented is necessarily an allegation that they acted intentionally. Despite the fact that plaintiff’s complaint alleges only negligence, “when a patient agrees to treatment for one condition and is subjected to a procedure related to a completely different condition, there can be no question but that the deviation from the consent given was intentional” … . As such, this claim is subject to the one-year statute of limitations for the intentional tort of battery — that is, “intentional physical contact with another person without that person’s consent” — rather than the 2½-year period applicable to medical malpractice claims … . Young v Sethi, 2020 NY Slip Op 06330, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether the continuous treatment applied such that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether [defendant’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, including rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs raised a question of fact as to whether the [the rehabilitation center’s] postoperative treatment of the patient, which included rehabilitative therapy, wound care, and pain management treatment through January 2015, constituted a continuation of the course of treatment for the condition which originally gave rise to the alleged medical malpractice … . Wright v Southampton Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06170, Second Dept 10-28-20

 

, ,

NEITHER THE “HABIT” NOR THE “ERROR IN JUDGMENT” JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) the “habit” jury instruction should not have been given; (2) the “error in judgment” jury instruction should not have been given; and (3) plaintiff’s expert cardiologist should have been allowed to testify about the appropriateness of taking plaintiff off the anti-coagulant medication, DAPT. Plaintiff had a heart attack in 2012 and was put on DAPT permanently by his cardiologist to prevent blood clots. In 2014 defendant cardiologist agreed to the defendant gastroenterologist’s request to have plaintiff stop taking DAPT temporarily to allow a colonoscopy procedure. While plaintiff was off the DAPT he had another heart attack:

… [T]he very conduct that is the subject of the [habit] charge in question is the “course of treatment regarding patients they held in common.” In order for a habit charge to be appropriate, the proof must demonstrate “‘a deliberate and repetitive practice by a person in complete control of the circumstances'” … . “On no view . . . can conduct involving not only oneself but particularly other persons . . . produce a regular usage because of the likely variation of the circumstances in which such conduct will be indulged” … . Here, neither defendant had complete control, and both defendants testified that their decisions regarding temporary cessation of DAPT prior to or after a colonoscopy varied depending on the circumstances of each patient. …

An error in judgment charge “is appropriate only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that [the] defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives” … . “A distinction must therefore be made between an ‘error in judgment’ and a doctor’s failure to exercise his or her best judgment. Giving the ‘error in judgment’ charge without regard for this distinction would otherwise relieve doctors whose conduct would constitute a breach of duty from liability” … . Here, the primary issue at trial was whether defendants deviated from the standard of care in determining to temporarily cease [plaintiff’s] DAPT both before and after his colonoscopy. There was no evidence presented that defendants chose between two or more medically accepted alternatives … . …

Plaintiffs’ cardiology expert established that he had knowledge and expertise in this area and should not have been barred from testifying as to whether [the gatroenterologist’s] decision to temporarily cease DAPT for 14 days after the colonoscopy was a departure from the standard of care … . Michalko v Deluccia, 2020 NY Slip Op 05991, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND RELIED ON FACTS NOT IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice should not have granted because plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit relied on facts not in the record:

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the affirmation of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition to the motion, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants deviated or departed from accepted medical practice. Even assuming that the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to opine on the placement of an epidural catheter, the expert’s opinion that [defendant] departed from the standard of care was conclusory and speculative, and relied on facts that were not supported by the record … . Herrera v Sanroman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05726, Second Dept 10-14-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIM ASSOCIATED WITH TOOTH NUMBER 28 IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address the plaintiff’s dental malpractice claim with respect to one tooth (tooth number 28). Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted on that claim:

Even assuming, as defendant claims, that plaintiff would still have had to undergo future dental work had these six teeth been saved, and that any disfigurement was not fairly attributable to defendant because plaintiff opted to have another dentist install her dentures, these facts do not negate the primary injury claimed by plaintiff — the unnecessary loss of these teeth. It is immaterial that plaintiff’s expert did not indicate that he or she had reviewed plaintiff or her husband’s deposition testimony, as review of these documents was not necessary to make an informed determination about the appropriateness of treatment. * * *

However, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted insofar as plaintiff’s claims are directed at tooth number 28, because plaintiff’s expert failed to raise an issue of fact regarding a departure of care with respect to this tooth. Castro v Yakobashvilli, 2020 NY Slip Op 05281, First Dept 10-1-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN OPINION; ANY WEAKNESSES IN THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WENT TO ITS WEIGHT NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this dental malpractice action should not have been dismissed. The weaknesses in plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit went to the weight of her opinion as evidence, not its admissibility:

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the motion, determining that the defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the dental malpractice cause of action insofar as asserted against him, and that the expert affirmation submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition lacked probative value because the plaintiffs’ expert was not qualified to render an opinion as to the applicable standard of care. …

… [T]he affirmation of the plaintiffs’ expert was sufficient to demonstrate his qualifications to render opinions as to the applicable standard of care and, under these circumstances, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant deviated from that standard and whether any such deviation was a proximate cause of [plaintiff’s] injuries … . “Any lack of skill or expertise that the plaintiff’s expert may have had goes to the weight of his or her opinion as evidence, not its admissibility” … . The parties’ conflicting expert opinions raised questions of credibility for the trier of fact … . Lesniak v Huang, 2020 NY Slip Op 05044, Second Dept 9-23-20

 

, ,

CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE STATE WITH TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimants’ motion for leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10(6) in this medical malpractice action should have been granted, primarily because the state had timely knowledge of the nature of the claim and was not prejudiced by the 14 week delay:

… [T]he claimants demonstrated that the State had timely notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries arising from the alleged malpractice, by virtue of the medical records from Southampton Hospital as well as the medical records from Stony Brook University Hospital (hereinafter University Hospital), also owned by the State, to which the claimants’ infant son was transferred and where he later died … . The medical records evidence the medical care received by the claimant and the infant. The records show that during the claimant’s labor, no sonogram of the fetus was taken to determine the fetus’ head size. The records also show that, after approximately nine hours of unsuccessful labor at Southampton Hospital, which included the administration of pitocin, a birth-facilitating drug, and an epidural, the claimant was counseled about using forceps to deliver the fetus. After the claimant agreed to try a forceps-assisted delivery and declined to consent to an episiotomy, the infant was delivered via forceps-assistance and was diagnosed immediately with a hemorrhage below his scalp as a result of “birth trauma.” Thereafter, the infant was transferred to University Hospital, where he died a week later. The autopsy report in University Hospital’s medical records indicates that the infant suffered, inter alia, an injury during the forceps-assisted delivery which separated the infant’s brain stem from his upper cervical spinal cord region, and the infant’s overly large head was noted to be a factor in this injury. Although the treating physician noted in his report—which was created after the delivery—that the claimant did not want a cesarean section, the claimant’s medical record contains a form signed by the claimant on admission consenting to a cesarean section. There is no documentation in the record to show that the claimant was advised that a cesarean section should be performed. In addition, the claimant’s medical records, postdelivery, demonstrate that she experienced perineal lacerations and vaginal tears, which were deep and penetrated the perirectal tissue, as a result of the delivery. Stirnweiss v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 04986, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly issued a protective order limiting the deposition questioning of a doctor (Brem) in this medical malpractice action and properly ordered that the deposition be supervised. Both sides had engaged in misconduct at the prior deposition:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of Winthrop’s [the hospital’s] motion which were for a protective order to the extent of limiting further questioning of Brem solely to his observations and treatment of decubitis ulcers sustained by Slapo [plaintiff’s decedent] and to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a special referee. While we agree with the court’s characterization of the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney at Brem’s deposition, we observe that the defense attorneys violated 22 NYCRR 221.1 by making numerous objections and making speaking objections. We further note that Brem violated 22 NYCRR 221.2 by refusing to answer questions. Given the obstructive conduct by the defense attorneys and Brem in violation of 22 NYCRR part 221, and the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney during the deposition, we agree with the court that appropriate supervision of the balance of Brem’s deposition is necessary. Because both sides have engaged in arguably sanctionable conduct during the course of Brem’s deposition … , it was inappropriate to compel the plaintiff to solely bear the cost of supervision thereof. Further, without the consent of all the parties, the court may not compel a party to pay for or contribute to the cost of an outside referee (see CPLR 3104[b] …). Accordingly, we modify the order so as to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a court-employed special referee … , a judicial hearing officer, or a court attorney referee. Slapo v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04887, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

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