You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , ,

EXTRINSIC COLLATERAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO IMPEACH DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S CREDIBILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $400,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the defendant doctor’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s $400,000 verdict should have been granted. The trial court should not have allowed extrinsic documentary evidence on collateral matters to impeach defendant’s credibility:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise”  … . “In considering such a motion, [t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should not have permitted the plaintiff to introduce extrinsic documentary evidence concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility … . In view of the importance of the defendant’s testimony and the emphasis given to the improperly admitted credibility evidence by the plaintiff’s counsel during summation, the errors were sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial … . Rudle v Shifrin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 4-29-20

 

, ,

CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conflicting expert opinions in this medical malpractice action created a question of fact:

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The expert affirmations of two board-certified urologists submitted by the plaintiff contradicted the conclusion of the NYCHH defendants’ experts that the RUMC defendants and other defendants caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s experts concluded, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred intra-operatively during the prostatectomy performed by Surasi at Woodhull Medical Center. Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where, as here, the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. “Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury” … . Castillo v Surasi, 2020 NY Slip Op 01903, Second Dept 3-18-20

 

, , ,

HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TREATING EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN DID NOT DEPART FROM ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF MEDICAL CARE; THE HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action against the hospital (Mercy) should not have been dismissed. The hospital failed to demonstrate the emergency physician (Hughes) was not an employee and failed to demonstrate the emergency physician did not depart from the accepted standards of care:

… [T]he Mercy defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of Hughes on the ground that he was not an employee. The medical records submitted by the Mercy defendants in support of the subject branches of the motion established that the plaintiff arrived at the hospital for treatment of her abdominal pain through the emergency department, and not as a patient of any particular physician … . In addition, the affidavit of a registered nurse employed by the defendant Mercy Medical Center as a Director Risk Management/Privacy Officer contained no evidentiary basis to support her conclusory assertion that Hughes was not an employee of the hospital … .

The Mercy defendants also failed to establish, prima facie, that Hughes did not depart from accepted community standards of medical care in the treatment of the plaintiff, or that any departure by Hughes was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Pinnock v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 01374, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN TO ADD A TREATING DOCTOR EMPLOYED BY A NAMED DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the relation-back doctrine allowed the amendment of the complaint (CPLR 1003) in this medical malpractice, wrongful death action to add a doctor, Abergel, who treated plaintiff’s decedent and was employed by the defendant professional corporation (P.C.):

The causes of action arose out of the same conduct, to wit, the alleged negligence by [defendant] Purow and Abergel in the course of treating the decedent for her ulcerative colitis at the P.C.’s office, which they each did within the scope of their employment with the P.C. …

The vicarious liability of the P.C. allows for a finding of unity of interest with Abergel, “regardless of whether the actual wrongdoer or the person or entity sought to be charged vicariously was served first'” … . …

… [T]he plaintiff satisfied the third prong of the test, which focuses, inter alia, on “whether the defendant could have reasonably concluded that the failure to sue within the limitations period meant that there was no intent to sue that person at all and that the matter has been laid to rest as far as he [or she] is concerned'” … . The decedent’s medical records from the P.C. included several notes signed by Abergel, and clearly and repeatedly referenced Abergel as a physician who treated the decedent as part of the care rendered to the decedent by the P.C. * * * In addition, the plaintiff demonstrated that the failure to originally name Abergel as a defendant was the result of a mistake, and there was no need to show that such mistake was excusable … . Petruzzi v Purow, 2020 NY Slip Op 01372, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

, , ,

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

 

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