You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, ,

IN A MED MAL ACTION, AN EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD WILL BE DEEMED “CONCLUSORY” AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted because the expert affirmation submitted is support of the motion was “conclusory and not supported by the record:”

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The defendants submitted, inter alia, the affirmation of an expert, whose opinions regarding the defendants’ alleged failure to diagnose the plaintiff’s aortic dissection after receipt of certain X-ray results and blood test results were conclusory and unsupported by the record … . That expert’s opinion regarding proximate cause was also conclusory and insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden as the parties moving for summary judgment … . In v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2025 NY Slip Op 04238, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: In a med mal case. an expert affirmation which is not supported by the record will be deemed “conclusory” and insufficient to support summary judgment.

 

, ,

BY SUBMITTING A CLAIM TO THE “SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND” (VCF), PLAINTIFF, WHO ALLEGED HIS PROSTATE CANCER WAS RELATED TO HIS WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER SEPTEMBER 11TH, WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUE HIS PHYSICIAN FOR AN ALLEGED DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PROSTATE CANCER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined the plaintiff’s submission of a claim to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) precluded his medical malpractice action. Plaintiff submitted the claim to VCF alleging his prostate cancer was related to his work at the World Trade Center after September 11th. Years later, in 2021, plaintiff sued his physician alleging a delay in diagnosing and treating the prostate cancer. Apparently the VCF claim was made close in time to the filing of the lawsuit. By filing the VCF claim, plaintiff waived the right to bring a civil lawsuit based on the prostate cancer:

“… [T]he Air Stabilization Act * * * created the [VCF]  . . . to provide no-fault compensation to victims who were injured in the attacks and to personal representatives of victims killed in the attacks … ; and provided an election of remedies —all claimants who filed with the [VCF] waived the right to sue for injuries resulting from the attacks except for collateral benefits” … .

The Air Stabilization Act was amended by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act … . * * *  The waiver provision now provides:

“Upon the submission of a claim under this title, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, or for damages arising from or related to debris removal. Brennan v MacDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 03994, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: Submitting a claim to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) waives the right to bring a civil suit based on the subject of the claim. Here plaintiff alleged his prostate cancer was related to work at the World Trade Center. Because he submitted a VCF claim for the prostate cancer, he cannot sue his physician for medical malpractice alleging a delay in diagnosis and treatment.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the ninety-day CPLR 3216 demand to file a note of issue required dismissal of the medical malpractice action. The law-office-failure excuse was vague and conclusory and plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action:

“Where, as here, a plaintiff has been served with a 90-day demand . . . pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period” … . Here, the plaintiff did neither.

“In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates ‘a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action'” … . “‘Although the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a justifiable excuse (see CPLR 2005), a claim of law office failure should be supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue'” … . Here, the vague and conclusory claim of law office failure set forth by the plaintiff’s attorney did not constitute a justifiable excuse … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit evidentiary proof from a medical expert demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Kresberg v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 03559, Second Dept 6-11-25

Practice Point: Here a vague and conclusory allegation of law-office-failure was not a reasonable excuse for failure to respond to the ninety-day demand to file a note of issue.

 

, ,

THE ERRONEOUS “LOSS OF CHANCE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED REVERSAL; THE CHARGE USED THE PHRASES “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR” AND “SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY” WHEN THE CORRECT PHRASE IS “SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY” IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BETTER OUTCOME WAS DENIED DUE TO A DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reinstating the complaint and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action, determined the “loss of chance” jury instruction was erroneous and required reversal:

As this Court has held since at least 2011, a “loss of chance instruction” is “entirely appropriate for . . . omission theories” in medical malpractice actions … . Although the Pattern Jury Instructions did not include a loss of chance pattern charge until 2023, i.e., after the second trial in this matter took place in December 2022, this Court had already issued numerous decisions prior to December 2022 indicating that “the loss of chance theory of causation . . . requires only that a plaintiff ‘present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care’ ” … .

Here, the court instructed the jury that, in order for plaintiff to recover under a loss of chance theory, it was plaintiff’s burden to establish that the act or omission alleged was a “substantial factor in bringing about the death.” The court also instructed the jury that, if it should find that “there was a substantial probability that the decedent . . . would have survived . . . if he had received proper treatment,” then it could find that defendants’ alleged negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing his death … .

… [T]he charge, as given, did not ” ‘adequately convey[ ] the sum and substance of the applicable law’ ” to the jury … . The primary issue at trial was whether defendants deviated from accepted standards of care in failing to timely treat decedent. Inasmuch as the “court did not adequately charge the jury concerning” the appropriate standard to determine that issue, we conclude that “the court’s failure to define [the correct] standard for the jury” cannot be considered harmless under the circumstances of this case … . Wright v Stephens, 2025 NY Slip Op 03416, Fourth Dept 6-7-25

Practice Point: The “loss of chance” medical malpractice jury instruction requires that plaintiff show there was a “substantial possibility” that a deviation from the standard of care precluded a better outcome. Here the judge used the phrase “substantial probability,” requiring reversal.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action did not address all the proximate-cause issues railed by defendant’s expert, specifically the plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up visited after being treated in the emergency room at Elmhurst Hospital (the defendant). Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

At Elmhurst, the injured plaintiff’s forearm was X-rayed, and his wound was cleaned, sutured, and dressed. Later that same day, the injured plaintiff was discharged and instructed to return in two days for a follow-up appointment. The injured plaintiff did not return for the follow-up appointment but instead followed up with several physicians who were not associated with the defendant. The injured plaintiff allegedly required surgery later to repair several tendons in his forearm. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant negligently failed to properly diagnose and treat the injured plaintiff’s injuries during the initial emergency department visit at Elmhurst. * * *

… [T]he defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting … an affirmation of an expert physician, who opined that the physicians and employees of the defendant did not depart from the applicable standard of care and that any alleged departures were not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding proximate cause. The opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert regarding proximate cause failed to address specific assertions made by the defendant’s expert regarding, among other things, the implications of the injured plaintiff’s failure to return for a follow-up appointment as instructed … . Torres v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02806, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: In this med mal action, the defense expert’s affirmation submitted with defendant’s motion for summary judgment raised proximate-cause issues that were not addressed by plaintiffs’ expert. Therefore, defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFFS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant surgeon was not entitled to summary judgment in this medical malpractice action. The defendant’s expert affidavit did not address specific allegations of negligence asserted by plaintiffs:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish .. that Ashraf [defendant] did not depart from the applicable standard of care in treating the injured plaintiff or that any such departure did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s injuries. An expert affidavit of Ashraf submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to address specific allegations of negligence asserted by the plaintiffs, including whether Ashraf departed from the applicable standard of care in placing a 14-millimeter polyethylene component during the September 2016 surgery, as opposed to a smaller size, and whether such departure was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries … . Sanchez v Ashraf, 2025 NY Slip Op 02803, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Summary judgment dismissing a medical malpractice action is dependent upon the defense expert’s affidavit. If the affidavit fails to address specific allegations of negligence made by the the plaintiff, summary judgment is not warranted. This is a fairly common ground for reversal.

 

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action should not have been granted. The defendant relied on the expert opinion of a physician who did not demonstrate familiarity with nursing home care and did not address the allegations that plaintiff’s decedent was left unattended on the floor after she fell and defendant’s personnel did not cooperate with the EMS personnel who attended the decedent:

“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in a medical malpractice action, a defendant must make a prima facie showing either that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice, or that the plaintiff was not injured by any such departure” … . “In order to sustain this prima facie burden, the defendant must address and rebut any specific allegations of malpractice set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars” … .

“Liability under the Public Health Law contemplates injury to the patient caused by the deprivation of a right conferred by contract, statute, regulation, code or rule, subject to the defense that the facility exercised all care reasonably necessary to prevent and limit the deprivation and injury to the patient. …

… [W]here a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . …

… [T]he defendant relied on an expert affirmation of a physician who engaged in, inter alia, the practice of cardiac critical care. This affirmation did not indicate that the physician had training in geriatric or nursing home care or what, if anything, the physician did to become familiar with the standard of care for these specialties … . … [T]he defendant’s expert failed to specifically address the allegations that the defendant’s staff members left the decedent on the floor unattended while awaiting the arrival of EMS and failed to cooperate with EMS personnel upon their arrival … . … [T]he EMS report reflected that the defendant failed to provide EMS personnel with more than mere transfer paperwork. … [T]he decedent initially could not be identified because she did not have an identification band, and EMS personnel did not know whether the patient was on blood thinners or subject to any “advance directives.” Deitch v Sands Point Ctr. for Health & Rehabilitation, 2025 NY Slip Op 02317, Second Dept 4-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the very different nature of a medical malpractice action as compared with a Public Health Law 2801-d action.

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s decedent fell at her nursing home. Defendant’s expert, a cardiac physician, did not demonstrate any familiarity with nursing home care, rendering his affidavit insufficient.

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice/Public Health Law 2801-d action, the expert’s failure to address all the allegations in the pleadings renders the expert evidence insufficient.

 

,

WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the “lack of informed consent” cause of action should have been dismissed because the gravamen of the the allegations was the failure to evaluate the seriousness of plaintiff’s condition:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages for medical malpractice based on lack of informed consent, “a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury” … . “The third element is construed to mean that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent must have been a proximate cause of the injury” … . However, where, as here, the gravamen of a plaintiff’s allegations are essentially that, due to their negligence, the defendants failed to evaluate the seriousness of the patient’s condition, “‘with the result that affirmative treatment was not sought in a timely manner,'” a plaintiff fails to state cause of action based on lack of informed consent … . Danziger v Mayer, 2025 NY Slip Op 01354, Second Dept 3-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the nature and elements of a “lack of informed consent” cause of action in a med mal case.​

 

, ,

THE USE OF ICE PACKS WAS NOT PART OF THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER’S BURN-TREATMENT SYSTEM; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFF FOR THE FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST APPLYING ICE PACKS TO BARE SKIN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Zeltiq, the manufacturer of a system for treating burns (CoolSculpting Systems), could not be held liable for injury allegedly caused by the application of ice packs after the CoolSculpting treatment. The complaint alleged a failure to warn of the the danger of using ice packs. The use of ice packs was not part of the CoolSculpting treatment:

Zeltiq also had no duty to warn plaintiffs of any risks associated with using ice packs after treatment with the CoolSculpting System. Because the CoolSculpting System is a FDA Class II medical device that requires a prescription, Zeltiq’s duty to warn runs to physicians, not directly to patients … . Thus, in this case, Zeltiq’s duty ran to Silverstein’s [plaintiff’s] treating physician, Dr. Brauer. However, there is no duty to warn of risks that are obvious, including risks that are well-known to physicians because of their medical training … . Dr. Brauer testified that through his education and training, he was aware of and knew of the dangers of placing ice on bare skin, and that those dangers were basic medical knowledge … . Plaintiffs’ expert does not dispute that these dangers are basic knowledge in the medical community and, in fact, opines that it is a deviation from the standard of care to place ice packs on bare skin.

In addition, given Dr. Brauer’s awareness of the risk, his status as a “responsible intermediary” breaks the chain of proximate cause between any failure to warn by Zeltiq and the harm to Silverstein … . Silverstein v Coolsculpting Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01183, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Here the application of ice packs to bare skin was not part of the defendant manufacturer’s burn-treatment system. The use of the burn-treatment system is by prescription only, so the duty to warn owed by the manufacturer runs to the physician, not the patient. Here the dangers of applying ice packs to bare skin are well known to physicians, so the use of ice packs by plaintiff’s physician broke the chain of proximate cause re: the defendant manufacturer.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action should not have been dismissed because it was in the form of a proceeding rather than an action. Supreme Court should have converted the proceeding into the proper form:

The petitioner commenced this purported proceeding by the filing of an order to show cause and a petition, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice. In opposition to the order to show cause and the petition, the respondent submitted an affirmation of counsel, in which counsel argued, among other things, that the proceeding should be dismissed because it was not brought in the proper form. The Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

Although this matter was improperly commenced in the form of a proceeding instead of an action, dismissal is not required. “Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), a proceeding should not be dismissed ‘solely because it is not brought in the proper form,’ and the court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form” … . Accordingly, we convert this proceeding into an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice, with the order to show cause deemed to be the summons and the petition deemed to be the complaint (see CPLR 103[c] …), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the respondent an opportunity to serve and file an answer within 20 days of service upon it of this decision and order with notice of entry … . Matter of Robinson v NYU Langone Hosps., 2025 NY Slip Op 00870, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: A proceeding brought in the wrong form can be converted to the proper form by the court pursuant to CPLR 103 (c).

 

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