You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, ,

THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A DOCTOR ORDERED THE RESTRAINT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, AS OPPOSED TO NEGLIGENCE, WAS THE APPROPRIATE THEORY; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2 1/2 YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent’s injuries were alleged to relate to defendant-hospital’s improper restraint of plaintiff’s decedent (apparently to keep him from getting up from his hospital bed). Defendant argued the 2 1/2 year statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions had passed. The Second Department held that defendant did not demonstrate that a doctor had ordered the restraints; therefore the defendant had not made out a prima facie case that the action sounded in medical malpractice as opposed to negligence:

” The critical question in determining whether an action sounds in medical malpractice or simple negligence is the nature of the duty to the plaintiff which the defendant is alleged to have breached'” … . ” When the duty arises from the physician-patient relationship or is substantially related to medical treatment, the breach gives rise to an action sounding in medical malpractice, not simple negligence'” … . ” 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'” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred under the 2½-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice actions (see CPLR 214-a). Since the defendant did not present any evidence that a doctor ordered the decedent to be restrained at any point prior to or during the subject incident, the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff’s claims related to medical treatment, as opposed to the failure of hospital staff to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to prevent harm to the decedent … . ​Wesolowski v St. Francis Hosp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06646, Second Dept 9-18-19

 

, , ,

HEARSAY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT ADMISSIBLE AS ADMISSIONS OR BUSINESS RECORDS; THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PROHIBITED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict in this medical malpractice case and ordering a new trial, determined that hearsay statements to the effect that plaintiff’s decedent had signed an “against medical advice [AMA]” form when he allegedly refused treatment at defendant hospital were not admissible under the Dead Man’s Statute or as statements against interest or admissions, or as business records:

“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]). Here, although the entries were germane to the decedent’s diagnosis and treatment, the defendants failed to offer foundational testimony under CPLR 4518(a) or certification under CPLR 4518(c) … . …

If an entry in the medical records “is inconsistent with a position taken by a party at trial, it is admissible as an admission by that party, even if it is not germane to the diagnosis or treatment, as long as there is evidence connecting the party to the entry'”  … . Here … the entry clearly states that the decedent’s primary care physician, not the decedent himself, was the source of the information … . …

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 [witnesses] were defendants at the time they gave deposition testimony, making them interested parties under the statute … [and] they both testified to transactions or communications with the decedent and sought to offer that testimony against the decedent’s estate. …

The defendants argue that the plaintiff waived the protections of the Dead Man’s Statute by eliciting the communications at issue. However, “[t]he executor does not waive rights under the statute by taking the opponent’s deposition” … . … Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the declaration of the decedent did not fall within the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule because the defendants failed to establish that the subject statement was against the decedent’s interest when made … . Moreover, where the Dead Man’s Statute renders a witness’s testimony inadmissible, “the fact that the testimony would fall within an exception to the hearsay rule is simply irrelevant” … . Grechko v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06478, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

, ,

COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the court did not have authority to dismiss the medical malpractice action pursuant to CPLR 3216 for failure to prosecute in the absence of a 90-notice. The court further noted that, although dismissal for failure to comply with discovery demands was not warranted, the preclusion of further discovery was appropriate:

With regard to CPLR 3216, “the courts have no authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, whether on the ground of general delay, or for failure to serve and file a note of issue, unless there has first been served a [90 day notice]” … . Here, it is undisputed that neither the Supreme Court nor the defendant served the requisite 90-day notice upon the plaintiff. …

… . [D]smissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126(3) was unwarranted as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to limit his disclosure demands. The remedy of dismissal is “only warranted where there has been a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands was willful and contumacious” … . The sanction of dismissal is available for the willful and contumacious failure to disclose … , which did not occur here. The plaintiff submitted to a deposition by the defendants. However, the lengthy pendency of this action, the dispute over the plaintiff’s overbroad demands for disclosure, and his refusal to tailor those demands in accordance with prior orders of the court, compels the conclusion that further disclosure has been forfeited. Rezk v New York Presbyt. Hospital/N.Y. Weill Cornell Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06426, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff had not moved pursuant to CPLR 1202 to be appointed guardian ad litem for her comatose husband (Zheng) prior to commencing the action:

… [T]he mere fact that this action was commenced before the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 1202 to be appointed guardian ad litem of her husband does not provide grounds for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3). An incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person … , and CPLR 1202(a) expressly contemplates that a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem may be made “at any stage in the action.” Thus, there is no strict legal requirement that the plaintiff should have been appointed guardian before the commencement of this action. While it would have been better for the action to have been commenced in Zheng’s name, rather than by the plaintiff “as Proposed Guardian Ad Litem of [Zheng],” the defect is not fatal, particularly given the relatively short delay between the commencement of the action and the filing of the plaintiff’s guardianship motion (see CPLR 2001). Linghua Li v Xiao, 2019 NY Slip Op 06388, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

, , ,

EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN ERRONEOUSLY PRONOUNCED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DEAD AND ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO REEXAMINE HIM FOR NEARLY THREE HOURS, DESPITE THE PLEAS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ALLEGEDLY SAW HIM BREATHING, MAKING EYE CONTACT AND MOVING; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED THE PARTIES FROM MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE; THE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have prohibited the parties and their attorneys from making statements about the underlying facts in this medical malpractice action, and the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent suffered cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead by an emergency physician (Perry). However plaintiff’s decedent was not in fact dead and the emergency physician allegedly refused to examine plaintiff’s decedent for nearly three hours. Plaintiff’s decedent subsequently died after surgery at another hospital:

Perry notified plaintiff that decedent had died, and plaintiff, along with decedent’s son and several other family members, was brought into the code room. Plaintiff alleges that, for the next two hours and 40 minutes, decedent was breathing, making eye contact, and moving around, which prompted her and the coroner to urge Perry and the nursing staff to examine decedent, but they refused to do so. When Perry examined decedent at 11:10 p.m. at plaintiff’s insistence, he observed that decedent was, in fact, alive. Decedent was transferred to another hospital, where he underwent heart surgery and subsequently died. * * *

Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motions for an order enjoining and prohibiting the parties and their attorneys from making extrajudicial statements about the action or the underlying facts in a public forum or in front of the media. Although defendants met their burden of “demonstrat[ing] that such statements present a reasonable likelihood’ of a serious threat to [defendants’] right to a fair trial” … , there is no evidence in the record “that less restrictive alternatives would not be just as effective in assuring the defendant[s] a fair trial” … . Absent “the requisite showing of a necessity for such restraints,” a court may not impose prior restraints on First Amendment rights … . * * *

We agree with defendants … that the court erred in denying their motions insofar as they sought summary judgment dismissing the … causes of action … for NIED … . . “A breach of the duty of care resulting directly in emotional harm is compensable even though no physical injury occurred’ … when the mental injury is a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach’ … and when the claim possesses some guarantee of genuineness’ … .  Here, defendants met their respective burdens of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff and decedent’s son did not suffer mental and emotional injuries causally related to Perry’s erroneous pronouncement of decedent’s death, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact by demonstrating the requisite ” guarantee of genuineness’ ” with respect to her claims of mental or emotional injuries … . Cleveland v Gregory C. Perry, M.D., FDR Med. Servs., P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 06306, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

, , ,

PROTRACTED DELAY IN PLAINTIFFS’ SEEKING SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AFTER INFANT PLAINTIFF’S DEATH DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, DEFENDANTS WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND THEREFORE WERE NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; IN ADDITION, THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD WRONGFUL DEATH SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ protracted delay in substituting father for the deceased infant in this medical malpractice action did not require dismissal of the complaint because the defendants were in possession of all the relevant medical records and therefore were not prejudiced by the delay. The court also noted that motion to amend the complaint to assert wrongful death should have been granted under the relation-back doctrine:

CPLR 1021 requires a motion for substitution to be made within a reasonable time … , and the determination of whether the timing is reasonable requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit … . Here, the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for leave to substitute Jean Petion, who is the father of the plaintiff Jeremiah Prince Petion (hereinafter the deceased infant) and administrator of the deceased infant’s estate (hereinafter the administrator), in place of the deceased infant as a party plaintiff and to amend the caption accordingly. Although the plaintiffs admit that the delay in seeking the substitution of the administrator was protracted … , the plaintiffs showed that there was no prejudice to the defendants because the defendants were on notice of the claims against them as early as February 2, 2009, when the plaintiffs filed a notice of claim against the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, and the defendants possessed all of the relevant medical records … . In opposition, the defendants asserted only conclusory allegations of prejudice based solely on the passage of time … . The plaintiffs also demonstrated that they have potentially meritorious causes of action through their expert’s affidavit of merit, the pleadings, and the testimony of Marie Petion at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing … . Petion v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06107, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, , ,

THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s expert’s affirmation concerning the alleged malpractice was deemed conclusory and therefore did not raise a question of fact. The informed consent cause of action was dismissed because the medical procedure was not the proximate cause of the claimed injuries:

To establish a cause of action to recover damages 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'” … . Here, the defendants established through their expert affirmation that the surgery performed … did not proximately cause the injured plaintiff’s claimed injuries … . Gilmore v Mihail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05647, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

, , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT THE EXPERT TESTIMONY PLAINTIFF COULD OFFER AT TRIAL DID NOT LIMIT THE ISSUES TO BE TRIED; THEREFORE ANY APPEAL MUST AWAIT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant doctor could not appeal the denial of defendant’s motion to limit the expert testimony which plaintiff could offer at trial in this medical malpractice action. The motion court’s ruling did not limit the issues to be tried. Therefore an appeal must be brought after trial:

It is well settled that “an order which merely determines the admissibility of evidence, even when made in advance of trial on motion papers, constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . Here, Supreme Court’s decision merely permits the infant to offer various testimony of his expert witnesses and does not limit the scope of issues to be tried … . Therefore, appellate review of the court’s ruling “must await the conclusion of a trial so that the relevance of the proffered evidence, and the effect of [the court’s] ruling with respect thereto, can be assessed in the context of the record as a whole” … . Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed … . C.H. v Dolkart, 2019 NY Slip Op 05614, Third Dept 7-11-19

 

, , , ,

STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH A HOSPITAL’S QUALITY ASSURANCE INVESTIGATION ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW; THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence, and refusing to follow the 2nd Department, determined certain statements made in connection with a hospital’s (SUNY Upstate’s) quality assurance investigation were privileged pursuant to the Education Law and Public Health Law and therefore were not subject to discovery in this medical malpractice action:

“The New York State Education Law shields from disclosure the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical and dental malpractice prevention program’ ” ( … see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2]). Although there is an exception to that privilege, “the exception is narrow” … and is limited to “statements made by any person in attendance at such a [quality assurance] meeting who is a party to an action or proceeding the subject matter of which was reviewed at such meeting” (Education Law § 6527 [3]; see Public Health Law § 2805-m [2] …).

Here, the “statements” at issue were provided shortly after the incident and were obtained as part of SUNY Upstate’s quality assurance investigation. The statements, however, were not made at a quality assurance committee meeting; nor were they made in response to any inquiries initiated by the committee … . None of the defendants appeared at any committee meeting. Thus, we agree with SUNY Upstate and defendants that plaintiff’s proposed construction of the statutory exception would not give any practical effect to the phrase “in attendance,” but rather would render that phrase meaningless … . Further, the Court of Appeals specifically instructed that the exception is “narrow and limited to statements given at an otherwise privileged peer review meeting” … .  Following plaintiff’s proposed construction “would extend the [statutory] exception to a point where it would swallow the general rule that materials used by a hospital in quality review and malpractice prevention programs are strictly confidential” … . Nowelle B. v Hamilton Med., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05464, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE TWO THYROID SURGERIES WERE PERFORMED BY THE SAME DOCTOR, THE 2005 SURGERY AND THE 2010 SURGERY WERE DISCRETE EVENTS; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice action based upon a 2005 thyroid surgery by the same doctor who performed the 2010 thyroid surgery was time-barred. The two surgeries were discrete events and the statute of limitations was not tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine:

Defendants established that [the 2005] claims are time-barred inasmuch as more than 2½ years elapsed between the date of the alleged conduct and the commencement of the action … , and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply. It is undisputed that plaintiff did not treat with Dr. Chahfe in relation to the 2005 surgery after her final follow-up appointment in 2005, and that she did not return to Dr. Chahfe until 2010. The surgical procedures in 2005 and 2010 were ” discrete and complete’ events that cannot be linked by way of the continuous treatment doctrine” … , and there was no evidence of anticipated further treatment related to the 2005 procedure at the time plaintiff left Dr. Chahfe’s care in 2005 … . Angelhow v Chahfe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05437, Fourth Dept 7-5-19

 

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