You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , ,

HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although plaintiff was precluded from offering expert evidence and therefore could not prove medical malpractice, the negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged scarring and burns caused by laser hair removal:

The Supreme Court erred in dismissing the negligence cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case in the absence of the testimony of an expert witness. At trial, the plaintiff may, through the testimony of his treating physician, records, or “other evidence,” be able to establish “the standard of care in performing laser hair removal and the known risks of the procedure” … . Therefore, contrary to the court’s determination, although the plaintiff is precluded from offering the testimony of an expert witness whose identity must be disclosed pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), at this juncture, it cannot be determined that the plaintiff will be unable to establish a prima facie case of negligence … . Mishli v Advanced Dermatology Laser & Cosmetic Surgery, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04386, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: In this case alleging scarring and burning during laser hair removal, the dismissal of a medical malpractice cause of action because the identity of an expert witness has not been disclosed did not necessarily preclude a negligence cause of action proven by the testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician.

 

, ,

THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosado, determined the relation-back doctrine applied to the wrongful death action against Dr. Ozcan and reinstated that cause of action. The court noted that the relation-back doctrine applies where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action:

Dr. Ozcan does not substantively dispute that the claims in the prior and instant actions arose out of the same conduct or that she is united in interest with Montefiore [Medical Center]. Therefore, the only question to be decided, is whether the third prong of the relation-back doctrine has been established.

Dr. Ozcan, who was named as a defendant in the First Action, should have known that, but for a mistake, the wrongful death claim would have been brought against her as well … .

Application of the relation-back doctrine is proper even where, as here, a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action … . Picchioni v Sabur, 2024 NY Slip Op 04362, First Dept 9–5-24

Practice Point: The relation-back doctrine applies to render an action timely brought even where a new action has been commenced and consolidated with a prior action.

 

, , ,

HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital was vicariously liable for the purported medical malpractice by a corporation (Meeting House) under a piercing-the-corporate-veil theory:

Generally, … piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . “‘[T]he corporate veil will be pierced to achieve equity, even absent fraud, when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego'” … . In determining whether to pierce the corporate veil, “[g]enerally considered are such factors as whether there is an overlap in ownership, officers, directors and personnel, inadequate capitalization, a commingling of assets, or an absence of separate paraphernalia that are part of the corporate form, such that one of the corporations is a mere instrumentality, agent and alter ego of the other” … .

… Meeting House failed to adhere to corporate formalities, such as holding board of directors’ meetings. Meeting House was owned and controlled by an employee of the hospital, whose office was in the hospital, pursuant to a contract with the hospital. The hospital had sole discretion over the number of shares and who would be the shareholders. Meeting House was also undercapitalized, since it appears that its assets consisted of a non-interest-bearing loan from the hospital … . Its budget and any amendments thereto had to be approved by the hospital. The common ownership, leadership, and control, and the common location on the grounds of the hospital and in the hospital itself, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the corporate veil should be pierced … . Midson v Meeting House Lane Med. Practice, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 04261, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for what it takes to raise a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced in support of a vicarious liability theory.

 

, ,

IN A MED MAL CASE, AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WHICH MAKES ASSERTIONS UNSUPPORTED AND BELIED BY THE RECORD AND, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSERTS ISSUES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, determined the plaintiffs’ expert did not raise a question of fact on whether the defendants (the Golden defendants) met the appropriate standard of care in this medical malpractice action:

Opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record. An expert cannot speculate, guess, or reach their conclusion by assuming material facts not supported by the evidence. The opinion must be supported either by facts disclosed by the evidence or by facts known to the expert personally. It is essential that the facts upon which the opinion is based be established, or fairly inferable, from the evidence … .

Here, the Golden defendants’ expert’s affirmation, which is based on information contained in the relevant medical records and deposition testimony, established prima facie their entitlement to summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiffs’ expert affirmations as pertain to the Golden defendants are refuted by the medical records and deposition testimony … , do not specifically controvert the opinion of defendants’ expert … , are conclusory and speculative, and fail to raise a triable issue of fact … .

An expert’s affirmation that sets forth general conclusions, misstatements of evidence, and unsupported assertions, and which fails to address the opinions of defendant’s expert, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … . As is one which raises for the first time in opposition to summary judgment a new theory of liability that has not been set forth in the bills of particulars or in the complaint … . Plaintiffs’ expert affirmations state for the first time in opposition to summary judgment that the Golden defendants departed from accepted practice when, after learning that decedent’s headache had lasted from two to four days, Dr. Golden failed to refer him to the emergency room for a CT scan. This theory is neither in plaintiffs’ complaints nor bills of particulars; is speculative, conclusory, and contradicted by the record; and should not have been considered by Supreme Court … . Cabrera v Golden, 2024 NY Slip Op 04112, First Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: Many med mal decisions reject without explanation expert opinion affidavits which are deemed “speculative” or “conclusory.” This opinion provides insight into the meaning of those terms.

 

,

WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK, THE EXCESS COVERAGE CLAUSES CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, explained how multiple “excess coverage” insurance policies should be applied:

“[W]here there are multiple policies covering the same risk, and each generally purports to be excess to the other, the excess coverage clauses are held to cancel out each other and each insurer contributes in proportion to its [policy] limit,” unless to do so would distort the plain meaning of the policies … . By contrast, “if one party’s policy is primary with respect to the other policy, then the party issuing the primary policy must pay up to the limits of its policy before the excess coverage becomes effective”  … . Kolli v Kaleida Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 03998, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The excess coverage clauses in multiple excess coverage policies covering the same risk cancel each other out.

 

, , ,

THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED ON HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC CAN BE BASED ON THE OVERALL STRAIN ON THE OVERWHELMED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS MED MAL CASE MAY DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO IMMUNITY AS THE CASE PROGRESSES, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ENTITLEMENT TO IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined defendants in this med mal case were not entitled to dismissal of the complaint based upon the immunity conferred by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDPTA) during the COVID pandemic. The plaintiff-patient, who did not have COVID, fell near his hospital bed and suffered a brain injury. After he fell, and before he suffered any symptoms of the injury from the fall, he was examined by two doctors. The doctors were not made aware of the fall. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint at the outset of the case based on the EDPTA, noting that the immunity conferred by the statute was based upon the overall strain placed on the healthcare system by the pandemic. The Second Department determined that, although the defendants may be able to demonstrate their entitlement to immunity as the case progresses, they did not demonstrate entitlement to immunity as a matter of law such that the complaint should be dismissed at the outset:

… [O]f the three conditions imposed by former Public Health Law § 3082(1), there is no question that defendants were arranging for or providing health care services as per the statute, and were doing so in good faith. The parties’ dispute distills to whether defendants established, conclusively, that “the treatment of [plaintiff was] impacted by [defendants’] decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak” (former Public Health Law § 3082[1][b]). * * *

A statute conferring immunity must be strictly construed … , and a party seeking its protections “must conform strictly with its conditions” … . In this regard, we note that only minimal discovery had been conducted at the time the motion was made, and that the applicability of the defense, itself, requires a fact-intensive inquiry. Whether or not defendants may ultimately be able to demonstrate that they are entitled to immunity, it is premature to deem the analysis completed at this juncture … . Holder v Jacob, 2024 NY Slip Op 03864, First Dept 7-18-24

Practice Point: Healthcare providers may be entitled to statutory immunity during the COVID pandemic. Here the defendants were unable to demonstrate entitlement to immunity as a matter of law such that the med mal complaint should be dismissed. But they may be able demonstrate entitlement to immunity as the case progresses.

 

, ,

AN EXPERT IN A MED MAL CASE NEED NOT BE A SPECIALIST IN THE RELEVANT FIELD; HERE A PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S CARE; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DIAGNOSE HER HEART CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this med mal case should not have been granted summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged a negligent failure to diagnose her heart condition. Plaintiff’s expert was a primary care physician, not a cardiologist. The Second Department noted that an expert need not be a specialist and found plaintiff’s expert had laid a proper foundation for his opinion:

“[A] medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field” … . However, the expert must “be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, the expert, who was in the practice of internal medicine and primary care for more than 35 years, demonstrated based on experience and knowledge that he or she was qualified to render an opinion regarding the symptomology and diagnosis of heart disease and as to whether the defendants properly examined the decedent and investigated her symptoms in accordance with accepted medical practices … . Rosenzweig v Hadpawat, 2024 NY Slip Op 03838, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: An expert in a med mal case need not be a specialist. Here a primary care physician laid a proper foundation for an opinion re: the defendants’ failure to diagnose plaintiff’s heart condition.

 

,

DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT DAMAGES FOR “PRE-IMPACT TERROR” ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN A MED MAL CASE; HERE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK IN 2008 AND DIED IN 2011 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in the med mal case, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined the damages for “pre-impact terror” were not appropriate. Plaintiff suffered a heart attack in 2008 and died in 2011:

… [P]re-impact terror delineated as emotional pain and suffering as a separate item of damages is inappropriate in this medical malpractice and wrongful death action and would represent an inappropriate extension of the law with respect to this issue. Traditionally, damages for pre-impact terror have been awarded in cases involving motor vehicle accidents and other types of accidents … . Here, where the “impact” was the decedent’s heart attack, the damages for emotional pain and suffering cannot accurately be characterized as damages for pre-impact terror, because they were intended to compensate for the fear the decedent experienced after the heart attack occurred in January 2008 at Westchester Medical Center until his death more than three years later on October 27, 2011, at Yale-New Haven Hospital. Further, unlike a motor vehicle accident where the defendant driver causes the impact, the WMC defendants did not cause the decedent’s heart attack. To the extent that the Appellate Division, First Department, determined otherwise in Small v City of New York (213 AD3d 475), we decline to follow that decision. Molina v Goldberg, 2024 NY Slip Op 03818, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: Disagreeing with the First Department, the Second Department held damages for “pre-impact terror” are not appropriate in the med mal case.

 

,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MED MAL CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME TO SERVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this medical malpractice case was entitled to dismissal of all claims because he was not properly served:

Defendant Michael B. Shannon, M.D. contends that this action should have been dismissed as against him for lack of timely service under CPLR 306-b … . It is undisputed on appeal that plaintiff failed to properly serve Shannon within 120 days of commencement of this action. Plaintiff does not purport to have demonstrated good cause for the delay. We find that an extension of time to serve Shannon was not warranted in the interest of justice.

Shannon’s unrebutted affidavit reflects that service was attempted at an office where he worked only as an independent contractor and that his residence and principal place of business were in Ohio. Plaintiff failed to make any effort to investigate further or to correct this error when Shannon failed to appear or answer. She did not file her default motion until nearly two years after commencing this action, which is well over the one-year deadline to make such a motion (see CPLR 3215[c]). The motion was also filed after discovery and motion practice were well underway. Diaz v Nasir, 2024 NY Slip Op 03536, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to serve defendant and did not make a timely motion to extend the time to serve, complaint dismissed.

 

,

IN MOVING TO VACATE A MORE THAN $2 MILLION DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS MED MAL CASE, DEFENDANT DOCTOR RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SHE WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS; A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required to determine whether defendant was properly served in this medical malpractice action. Defendant doctor never appeared and a default judgment of over $2 million had been entered:

In order to warrant a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the denial of service must be substantiated by specific, detailed facts that contradict the affidavit of service … .

Here, the affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of proper service. In moving … to vacate the judgment, the defendant did not merely make a conclusory denial of service, but provided specific, detailed facts that contradicted the affidavit of service. The defendant denied having an employee who had the same name or matched the physical description as the individual allegedly served, “Pearl Unan.” … [T]he defendant stated that at the time of the alleged service his office was closed and there was no one at his reception desk. The defendant’s sworn, nonconclusory denial of service was sufficient to dispute the veracity or contents of the affidavit, requiring a hearing … . … [T]he affidavits of Alexis Malone and Scott Sachs, who were employed by the defendant, also provided specific and detailed facts that contradicted the affidavit of service. Harrison v Schottenstein, 2024 NY Slip Op 03418, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: Although a process server’s affidavit is prima facie evidence of proper service, a sworn, nonconclusory, fact-based denial of service by the defendant requires a hearing. If defendant is never served, the court never had jurisdiction.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy