You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MEDICAL CENTER IS LIABLE UNDER THE OSTENSIBLE AGENCY DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) there is a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this medical malpractice action; (2) the lack of informed consent cause of action should be reinstated; (3) there is a question of fact whether the medical center (NYU Langone) is liable for the anesthesiologist (Coopersmith) who performed the pre-surgery nerve block pursuant to the doctrine of ostensible agency; and (4) the action against the doctor who assisted Dr. Coopersmith was properly dismissed because she didn’t exercise any independent judgment in the procedure:

… [W]e agree with plaintiff that she sufficiently established that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to her cause of action for medical malpractice. The parties’ experts disagreed as to whether plaintiff’s injury ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence, raising an issue of fact on that point … . Plaintiff also established that defendants were in control of all instruments used in the nerve block, and plaintiff’s actions did not contribute to her injuries … . To the extent that defendants’ expert opined that post-operative symptoms and image studies were not consistent with needle trauma to a nerve, that opinion did not refute plaintiff’s assertion of res ipsa loquitur because it failed to identify any other possible cause of plaintiff’s plexopathy, let alone a more probable cause … . Moreover, defendants’ expert did not dispute that plaintiff sus tained nerve damage and did not opine that the nerve damage pre-existed the surgery. …

We agree with defendants that they were entitled to a determination that no actual agency existed between NYU Langone and Dr. Coopersmith because NYU Langone did not employ or otherwise control Dr. Coopersmith. However, we find that an issue of fact exists as to whether NYU Langone could be held liable for Dr. Coopersmith’s actions in his treatment of plaintiff through ostensible agency. It is undisputed that plaintiff was treated by Dr. Feldman [the surgeon] because she sought out his care. However, Dr. Feldman testified that he did not choose which anesthesiologist at NYU Langone would perform the nerve block on plaintiff, instead an anesthesiologist was assigned by the Department of Anesthesia. A jury could reasonably infer from this testimony that Dr. Coopersmith was provided by NYU Langone and that plaintiff reasonably believed that Dr. Coopersmith was acting on NYU Langone’s behalf … . Sklarova v Coopersmith, 2020 NY Slip Op 01033, First Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE NOT AFFECTED BY A YEAR AND THREE MONTH GAP IN TREATMENT, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Although the alleged malpractice (the failure to follow up on a detection of a mass) occurred in 2006, the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. A year and three month gap in treatment did not preclude application of the continuous treatment doctrine:

Plaintiff raised an issue of fact as to whether Dr. Woo continuously treated the decedent for conditions related to renal cell carcinoma. Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Feit, opined that Dr. Woo treated the decedent for symptoms of back pain, hypertension, and insomnia, all of which were symptoms of and related to renal cell carcinoma, a diagnosis that should have been considered given the findings in the 2006 MRI of a renal mass.

Plaintiff sufficiently established that such treatment continued through the decedent’s hospitalization in July 2012. * * *

The one-year-and-three month gap between the April 2011 visit and the July 2012 note does not preclude application of the continuous treatment doctrine … . Dookhie v Woo, 2020 NY Slip Op 00975, First Dept 2-11-20

 

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS REINSTATED AGAINST SEVERAL DEFENDANTS; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE ACTIONS WERE REINSTATED BASED UPON A NEW THEORY WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, reinstated the medical malpractice action against several defendants. The dissent argued that evidence submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment presented a new theory and should have been rejected on that ground. The dissent argued that the new theory was raised for the first time in a “supplemental” bill of particulars which, the majority concluded, had been properly struck by Supreme Court:

… [W]e conclude that the court properly granted the motions to strike plaintiff’s “supplemental” bills of particulars inasmuch as they were actually amended bills of particulars. We further conclude that the amended bills of particulars are “a nullity” inasmuch as the note of issue had been filed and plaintiff failed to seek leave to serve amended bills of particulars before serving them upon defendants … .

From the dissent:

… [P]laintiff’s expert’s opinions on malpractice and causation cannot create a question of fact because they are based on a new condition and new injury. Plaintiff’s expert opined that: plaintiff’s son developed Henoch-Schonlein Purpura (HSP) in the days before presenting to the emergency room and was suffering from HSP when he presented to the emergency room; plaintiff’s son was misdiagnosed and the correct diagnosis was HSP; as a result of the mistriage, plaintiff’s son went into hypovolemic shock; and, if properly triaged, plaintiff’s son’s condition, i.e., HSP, never would have progressed to hypovolemic shock.

Plaintiff’s expert’s opinion regarding failure to triage and diagnose relates to a new condition, HSP, and his opinion on proximate cause relates to a new injury, hypovolemic shock, neither of which were included in plaintiff’s original bill of particulars and both of which were included in the “supplemental” bills of particulars, which this Court unanimously agrees were properly struck. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert’s opinions regarding the defendants’ negligence and proximate cause involve a new condition and new injury not included in plaintiff’s original bill of particulars, they constituted a new theory of recovery and thus could not be used to defeat the defendants’ motions … . Jeannette S. v Williot, 2020 NY Slip Op 00743, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The plaintiffs attempted to raise an evidentiary issue and theory of liability for the first time in opposition to the motion:

… [T]he plaintiffs improperly alleged, for the first time, a new theory claiming that other employees of the hospital were negligent in failing to properly administer Decadron and Heparin in accordance with the prescription of the plaintiff’s attending physician. ” A plaintiff cannot, for the first time in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, raise a new or materially different theory of recovery against a party from those pleaded in the complaint and the bill of particulars'” … . Bacalan v St. Vincents Catholic Med. Ctrs. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00561, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, ,

THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CREDITED BOTH EXPERTS, ONE OF WHOM OPINED DEFENDANT WAS AT RISK FOR FUTURE HEART PROBLEMS; THEREFORE THE AWARD OF ZERO DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING WAS ERROR; AWARD INCREASED BY $10,000 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the conflicting expert evidence credited by the Court of Claims forced the conclusion claimant suffered some permanent damage to his heart. Therefore awarding nothing for future pain and suffering was error. The Third Department awarded an additional $10,000:

… [T]he court accepted aspects of both experts’ opinions, crediting both the opinion of defendant’s expert cardiologist that claimant had suffered no significant permanent damage and simultaneously crediting the opinion of claimant’s expert cardiologist that claimant could develop a future arrhythmia because of his injury. As claimant argues, and based upon our review of the record, we find these opinions to be inconsistent with one another. Claimant’s cardiologist based his opinion that claimant was at risk of developing a future arrhythmia upon his opinion that claimant had suffered permanent damage to his heart muscle, consisting of weakness that would not resolve with time and that required the rest of his heart to work harder to maintain normal function. As the court noted, claimant’s cardiologist did not quantify the degree of potential risk to which he believed claimant was exposed. Nevertheless, in order to accept the opinion that claimant’s risk of suffering a future arrhythmia was increased, the court must necessarily also have credited the cardiologist’s opinion that claimant had suffered some, albeit limited, degree of permanent injury.

We thus find that the award of no damages for future pain and suffering deviates from reasonable compensation. Serrano v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00458, Third Dept 1-23-20

 

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED BY A NON-EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the hospital, Good Samaritan, was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of a physician, Chin, who, although not a hospital employee, treated plaintiff in the hospital emergency room:

“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 negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself” … . However, “[a]n exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff seeks to hold a hospital vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of an attending physician who is not its employee where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . …

Here, although Good Samaritan established that Chin was not its employee, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Good Samaritan’s emergency room seeking treatment from a privately selected physician rather than from the hospital itself … . Fuessel v Chin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00404, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been granted to several of the defendants in this medical malpractice action because the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a triable issue of fact. The expert did not demonstrate expertise in relevant areas and the expert’s opinions were conclusory and speculative with respect to three of the defendants. The Second Department noted that a court should not consider a theory of liability raised for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment motion:

“While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “Thus, where a physician provides an opinion beyond his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who specialized in general and vascular surgery, did not indicate that he or she had any special training or expertise in orthopaedics or family medicine, and failed to set forth how he or she was, or became, familiar with the applicable standards of care in these specialized areas of practice … . Further, the conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert as to Desai, Anand, and Sveilich were conclusory and speculative … , improperly based on hindsight reasoning … , and self-contradictory … . Samer v Desai, 2020 NY Slip Op 00318, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO ADVISE DECEDENT AND THE NURSE MIDWIFE AGAINST HOME BIRTH; SUCH FAILURE COULD CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED IN PART ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Defendant, Lascale, is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist specializing in maternal-fetal medicine. Plaintiff’s decedent died in childbirth when she was assisted at home by a certified nurse midwife (Moss Jones). Plaintiffs alleged Lascale negligently failed to advise decedent and Moss Jones of the dangers of a home birth given the baby’s size and the fact decedent had previously given birth by caesarian section. Lascale argued his limited role, analyzing periodic sonograms, did not include advice on delivery. The Second Department noted that the motion court, sua sponte, should not have granted defendant’s motion based in part on an issue not raised by the parties:

Although Lescale, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, purported to limit the scope of his duty to the field of maternal-fetal medicine, and the performance and interpretation of ultrasounds, it was within such limited scope of duty to consult with the decedent and Moss Jones … , concerning his diagnosis of suspected fetal macrosomia [the baby was very large], and how such diagnosis would increase the risks of a VBAC [vaginal birth after caesarian section] home birth, given all of the other risk factors that were present. Given such risks, it was also within the scope of Lescale’s duty to advise the decedent and Moss Jones against proceeding with the planned VBAC home birth. * * *

“When a question of proximate cause involves an intervening act, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” . “It is only where the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the norm… al course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct, that it may possibly break the causal nexus” … .

* * * Whether the decedent would have heeded appropriate warnings and advice by Lescale in light of, inter alia, the purported warnings she was given by Moss Jones, or her own views, is for the jury to decide … . Romanelli v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 00316, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, ,

AFTER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THREE OF FOUR NEW JERSEY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; WITH RESPECT TO ONE NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT, THE JURISDICTION ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that New Jersey defendant Princeton Radiology Associates (PRO) and the associated defendant doctors (Tsai and Chon) had demonstrated New York did not have jurisdiction over them in this medical malpractice action. With regard to another related New Jersey defendant, Princeton Procure Management, LLC (PPM), the First Department held its lack-of-jurisdiction affirmative defense should not have been dismissed and a jury must decide the issue:

After defendants PPM, PRO, Tsai and Chon moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the motion court found that plaintiff had made a “substantial start” in demonstrating a basis for personal jurisdiction over those defendants. PPM appealed and this Court affirmed, noting the evidence that PPM had identified a principal place of business in New York, and that it “marketed its Somerset, New Jersey, location to target New York residents, touting its proximity to New York in advertising,” and “entered into an agreement with a consortium of New York City hospitals for the referral of cancer patients for treatment at its facility” … . …

Plaintiff did not meet her ultimate burden of establishing that Drs. Tsai and Chon, New Jersey doctors who treated her in New Jersey, projected themselves, on their own initiative, into New York to engage in a sustained and substantial transaction of business related to her claims, such that specific long-arm jurisdiction existed over them under CPLR 302(a)(1) … . …

… [Re: PPM] we conclude that the evidence submitted by plaintiff … does not warrant dismissal of PPM’s affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction. As to general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, plaintiff presented documents in which PPM listed a New York place of business, but PPM submitted an affidavit of its president, who identified PPM’s principal place of business as in New Jersey and denied having a New York principal office. …

Plaintiff also failed to establish that specific long-arm jurisdiction exists over PPM under CPLR 302(a)(1). The evidence presented by plaintiff, including various contracts and the radio interviews and billing documents discussed above, provides a “sufficient start” in demonstrating a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction … , but does not warrant dismissal of PPM’s affirmative defense … . Robins v Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00047, First Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN MINUTES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A PULMONARY EMBOLISM UPON ADMISSION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case should not have been granted. The opinion is fact-specific and too detailed to fairly summarize here. The majority concluded there was a question of fact whether the administration of a drug, which defendants averred was contraindicated, would have saved decedent’s life. Decedent  was suffering from a pulmonary embolism upon admission. The staff waited hours for blood tests and an angiogram to confirm the diagnosis. A drug which can dissolve blood clots in minutes was not administered. Barry v Lee, 2019 NY Slip Op 09397, First Dept 12-26-19

 

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