You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SET ASIDE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE OF TWO NON-PARTY DOCTORS WHO ALSO TREATED PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS WERE NOT SHOWN TO BE QUALIFIED TO OFFER OPINION EVIDENCE CONCERNING EMERGENCY MEDICINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, set aside the verdict in this medical malpractice case in the interest of justice. The defendants (Kirschen, Roberts and Winthrop) were involved in emergency treatment of the plaintiff for back pain. Subsequently surgery was performed by two additional (non-party) doctors (Obedian and Sonstein) to deal with an abscess on plaintiff’s spine. At trial the defendants were not allowed to cross-examine plaintiff’s experts about the possible negligence of the surgeons, which was deemed reversible error. The Second Department further held plaintiff’s experts should not have been allowed to testify as experts in emergency medicine because no specialized knowledge of emergency medicine was demonstrated:

” 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'” … . …

… [T]the evidence at trial failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s injuries were capable of any reasonable or practicable division of allocation among Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop, and Obedian and Sonstein … . Thus, if, as Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop propose, a jury were to find that Obedian and Sonstein departed from accepted medical practice and that this departure was a substantial factor in depriving the plaintiff of a substantial chance for an improved outcome, Obedian and Sonstein could be found at fault together with Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop … . As a result, any evidence as to the culpability of Obedian and Sonstein was relevant under CPLR 1601(1) … . The court’s error in precluding Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop from cross-examining two of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses on this issue deprived Kirschen, Roberts, and Winthrop of “substantial justice” … . Daniele v Pain Mgt. Ctr. of Long Is.. 2019 NY Slip Op 00093, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FALL FROM BED WAS THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE TO TAKE ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FALLING AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FALL EXACERBATED THE PROGRESSION OF PLAINTIFF’S INTERCRANIAL HEMORRHAGE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs raised a question of fact about whether defendants in this medical malpractice case deviated for accepted standards of care. Plaintiff Salgado, who was suffering from an intercranial hemorrhage, fell out of bed, which may have exacerbated the progression of the hemorrhage. There was a question of fact whether proper precautions to prevent a fall were taken, given that Salgado had no right hand grip or right arm or leg movement:

… [T]he plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants departed from accepted standards of practice by failing to prevent Salgado from falling out of bed and whether his injuries were exacerbated by his fall. More particularly, the plaintiffs submitted the affirmation of an expert who opined that the monitoring and precautions against falls implemented by the hospital in its Medical Intensive Care Unit departed from accepted standards of practice because, given the medical condition noted in Salgado’s chart, i.e., “calm” and “lethargic” with no right hand grip or right arm or leg movement early the same day, Salgado’s fall could not have occurred unless restraints were improperly applied. Furthermore, with respect to causation, the plaintiffs’ expert opined that the increase in the size of Salgado’s intercranial hemorrhage from the morning of the fall, accompanied by the new onset of midline shift, was too extensive and rapid in onset to be due solely to the natural progression of Salgado’s original hemorrhage. Salgado v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08967, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, ,

EXPERTS MAY NOT RELY ON DISPUTED FACTS IN RENDERING AN OPINION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, noted that experts cannot rely on disputed facts when rendering an opinion:

Although defendants submitted affidavits from medical experts opining that the individual defendants did not deviate from the standard of care and that any alleged deviation was not a proximate cause of the postsurgery medical complications, those experts relied solely on the symptoms as documented in the medical records of [two of the defendants]. … [T]hose symptoms are vastly different from the symptoms allegedly reported to the remaining defendants and demonstrated by plaintiff before the surgery. It is well settled that experts may not rely upon disputed facts when rendering an opinion … . Moreover, we note that defendants’ experts failed to address plaintiff’s contention that, had he been timely diagnosed, he would not have been required to undergo the surgery in the first place. … “By ignoring the [allegation that the remaining defendants’ malpractice caused plaintiff to undergo the very surgery that caused the brain bleed], defendant[s’] expert[s] failed to tender[ ] sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’ . . . as to proximate causation and, as a result, [the remaining] defendant[s] [were] not entitled to summary judgment” with respect to those parts of their respective motions and cross motions … . Kubera v Bartholomew, 2018 NY Slip Op 08784, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

, ,

A BLOCKED TRACHEOSTOMY TUBE IS A FORESEEABLE EVENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANT ANESTHESIOLOGIST WAS TRAINED AND PREPARED, THEREFORE THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action, determined the jury should not have been charged on the emergency doctrine. Plaintiff’s decedent died after her tracheostomy tube became blocked. Because a blocked tracheostomy tube is a foreseeable condition, the emergency doctrine did not apply:

In the days after … surgery, Jones [plaintiff’s decedent] was improving and was out of bed and talking. On March 30, 2007, a nurse and respiratory therapist were removing a Passy-Muir valve (a device designed to allow a patient to speak with a tracheostomy tube in place) and met resistance while attempting to place an inner cannula into the tube. Jones began to experience shortness of breath. Despite attempts to suction the tube and ventilate Jones manually with an Ambu bag, Jones’s oxygen saturation levels continued to drop to the low 60s, and her level of consciousness rapidly decreased. Accordingly, Sher [defendant], an anesthesiologist, and Joann Noto, a physician assistant, were paged. * * *

… [W]e disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to instruct the jury on the emergency doctrine. The emergency doctrine “has been reserved, in a medical context, to situations where a doctor is confronted by a sudden and unforeseen condition’ and is forced to undertake care under less than optimal circumstances,” and is inapplicable where the defendant physician was trained and prepared for the specific emergency … . Here, there is no dispute that it was foreseeable for secretions to block a tracheostomy tube and that Sher was qualified as an anesthesiologist to replace a blocked tracheostomy tube. Indeed, Sher admitted that, in his 30 years of experience, creating airways for patients is what anesthesiologists do. Further, Sher was advised by Noto that a mucus plug was blocking the tracheostomy tube which Sher was ultimately able to replace within seconds. Accordingly, there was no sudden and unforeseen condition for which Sher was not trained or prepared. Crayton v Sher, 2018 NY Slip Op 08461, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

, ,

A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department. reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff alleged a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted during surgery in 1993 and was discovered and removed in 2012. If the stent were a “foreign object,” the action would have been timely. But the stent was deliberately inserted for a medical purpose, although it should have been removed after up to six months. Because the stent was purposely inserted, it was not a “foreign object:”

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the ureteral stent/catheter allegedly inserted in his body was a “foreign object” such that the discovery rule should apply. According to the parties’ experts, a ureteral stent/catheter is a tube that bridges the kidney to the bladder, and is inserted and intentionally left in a patient for up to six months to assist in the draining of the kidney when the ureter is obstructed or when damage to the ureter was repaired and it is healing. The parties’ experts agree that if a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted in the plaintiff’s body during the 1993 procedure, then it was intentionally left in his body for the purpose of assisting in the draining of the kidney. Thus, the device was retained in the plaintiff’s body (if inserted at all) for ” postsurgery healing purposes'” and was not “analogous to tangible items” or “surgical paraphernalia,” such as clamps, scalpels, sponges, and drains, “introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure”… . For these reasons, the ureteral catheter/stent was not a “foreign object,” and the action should have been dismissed as time-barred … . Livsey v Nyack Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08289, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/FOREIGN OBJECT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim was properly granted. Apparently plaintiff had fallen. The ambulance call report, prepared by defendants, indicated that plaintiff had limited response in her lower body. Plaintiff was rendered a partial quadriplegic. Expert opinions submitted in support of the motion were based upon a review of the ambulance report and concluded that plaintiff should have been immobilized and her injuries would not have been so severe if she had been immobilized. The Second Department explained that where malpractice is apparent from and independent review of the records, the records constitute timely actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim:

While the ambulance call report, without more, does not establish actual knowledge of a potential injury where the record does not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury … , where malpractice is apparent from an independent review of the medical records, those records constitute “actual notice of the pertinent facts” … . Here, the plaintiff submitted the expert opinions of Paul Werfel and Robert E. Todd. Werfel, a certified paramedic and professor of clinical emergency medicine at Stony Brook University, reviewed the medical records, including the appellants’ ambulance report. In his affidavit, Werfel stated that, in his “opinion to a reasonable degree of EMT standards,” Rescue Squad “failed to use spinal precautions and/or follow required EMT protocols as it relates to mobilizing and placing a patient on a stretcher who has a high index of having sustained a spinal cord injury.” Werfel further averred that Rescue Squad and NDP failed to comply with required protocols when transferring the plaintiff to the hospital. … Inasmuch as the ambulance report, upon independent review, suggested injury attributable to malpractice, it provided the appellants with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … .

Furthermore, the plaintiff made an initial showing that the appellants were not prejudiced by the delay in serving a notice of claim inasmuch as the appellants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim via their own ambulance report … . Ballantine v Pine Plains Hose Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07697, Second Dept 11-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MUNICIPAL LAW, WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE,  WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM  (MUNICIPAL LAW, WHERE MALPRACTICE IS APPARENT FROM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS, THOSE RECORDS CONSTITUTE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should not have been consolidated with an contract action to determine an insurance-coverage obligation in the malpractice action:

… Salvatore Leone and Santa Leone (hereinafter together the Leones) commenced an action to recover damages for medical malpractice against Alvin Hershfeld and Medical Office of Howard Beach, P.C. (hereinafter together Hershfeld; hereinafter the malpractice action). … Hershfeld commenced the instant action against JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc. (hereinafter JM Woodworth), seeking a declaration that JM Woodworth was obligated to defend and/or indemnify Hershfeld in the malpractice action, and to recover damages for breach of contract, and also named the Leones as defendants. * * *

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in consolidating the two actions for the purpose of a joint trial and in amending the caption accordingly. In the malpractice action, the issues involve, inter alia, the alleged negligence of Hershfeld and the alleged damages suffered by the Leones. In the instant action, the issue to be resolved is JM Woodworth's alleged contractual obligation to provide insurance coverage to Hershfeld in the malpractice action. The two actions do not involve common questions of law or fact (see CPLR 602[a]…). Moreover, a joint trial of the two actions could result in substantial prejudice to JM Woodworth. Indeed, it has long been recognized that it is inherently prejudicial to insurers to have the issue of insurance coverage tried before the jury that considers the underlying liability claims, even where common questions of law and fact exist … . Hershfeld v JM Woodworth Risk Retention Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06229, Second Dept 9-26-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 602  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the hospital's motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action was properly denied. The hospital did not demonstrate that the two physicians alleged to have committed malpractice were not employees of the hospital and did not demonstrate the two physicians did not deviate from the acceptable standards of medical care:

“In general, a hospital may not be held vicariously liable for the malpractice of a private attending physician who is not an employee” … . Therefore, when hospital employees, such as resident physicians and nurses, have participated in the treatment of a patient, the hospital may not be held vicariously liable for resulting injuries where the hospital employees have merely carried out the private attending physician's orders … . These rules shielding a hospital from liability do not apply when: (1) “the staff follows orders despite knowing that the doctor's orders are so clearly contraindicated by normal practice that ordinary prudence requires inquiry into the correctness of the orders'”… ; (2) the hospital's employees have committed independent acts of negligence … ; or (3) the words or conduct of the hospital give rise to the appearance and belief that the physician possesses the authority to act on behalf of the hospital … . “Thus, in order to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law defeating a claim of vicarious liability, a hospital must demonstrate that the physician alleged to have committed the malpractice was an independent contractor and not a hospital employee'” … . …

The hospital defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that both physicians alleged to have committed malpractice, the two attending nephrologists, were independent contractors [not emplyees]. Dupree v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06000, Second Dept 9-12-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITALS, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

,

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT DEFENDANT DOCTORS DID NOT DEPART FROM GOOD AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert affidavit submitted by defendant emergency room defendants was insufficient to eliminate a question of fact whether the doctors departed from good and accepted medical practice. Plaintiff alleged his sports related injury was not correctly diagnosed in the emergency room:

The plaintiff … submitted an affirmation from an expert, a physician certified in general surgery, who opined that the plaintiff had presented to the emergency room on October 2, 2013, with symptoms of compartment syndrome and that the moving defendants departed from the accepted standard of care by failing to perform adequate testing and diagnose the compartment syndrome, from which the plaintiff was suffering at that time.

… [T]he moving defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the emergency room defendants did not depart from good and accepted standards of medical care, or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The moving defendants' expert merely recounted the treatment rendered and opined in a conclusory manner that such treatment did not represent a departure from good and accepted medical practice … . Kelly v Rosca, 2018 NY Slip Op 05922, Second Dept 8-29-18

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT DEFENDANT DOCTORS DID NOT DEPART FROM GOOD AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THAT DEFENDANT DOCTORS DID NOT DEPART FROM GOOD AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimants' motion to file a late notice of claim in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted:

“Court of Claims Act § 10(6) permits a court, in its discretion, upon consideration of the enumerated factors, to allow a claimant to file a late claim” … . The enumerated factors are whether the delay in filing was excusable, the State of New York had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, the State had an opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claim, the claim appears to be meritorious, the State is prejudiced, and the claimant has any other available remedy … . “No one factor is deemed controlling, nor is the presence or absence of any one factor determinative” … . …

The claimants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay of more than one year and eight months in seeking leave to file a late claim. …

“Merely having or creating hospital records, without more, does not establish actual knowledge of a potential injury where the records do not evince that the medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted any injury” on the claimants' decedent attributable to malpractice or negligence … . …

The claimants also failed to demonstrate that the defendant had an opportunity to timely investigate the facts underlying the claim, as well as locate and examine witnesses while their memories of the facts were still fresh … . …

In addition, the claimants failed to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action based on their allegations of medical malpractice, since they failed to provide an affidavit of merit from a physician … . Decker v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05751, Second Dept 8-15-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (COURT OF CLAIMS, (MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LATE NOTICE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

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