You are here: / Medical Malpractice
,

JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the driver who caused the injury to plaintiff’s leg was properly excluded from the verdict sheet in this medical malpractice action. Only the treatment of the leg injury (amputation) was before the jury, not the original injury:

[T]he court [did not] err in denying defendants’ request to place the driver of the vehicle that struck plaintiff, who settled prior to institution of the instant action, on the verdict sheet. Defendants are subsequent tortfeasors, and the jury was correctly charged that its award was to be limited to the exacerbation of the original injury caused by malpractice … . Defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s original injury and subsequent amputation were indivisible is without merit, in that the experts testified as to what the condition of the leg would have been if it had been saved … . Defendants’ arguments concerning General Obligations Law § 15-108 are academic, given that the court reduced the judgment based upon the settlement received by the settling driver. Marin v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08294, 1st Dept 12-8-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET)

, ,

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. The plaintiff served a notice of claim 30 days after the 90-day time limit expired, but defendant NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation conducted a 50-h hearing. After serving the summons and complaint, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a late notice of claim:

General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) permits a court to extend the time to serve a notice of claim. In determining whether to grant such an extension, the court must consider various factors, of which the ” most important'” is “whether the public corporation acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the accrual of the claim or within a reasonable time thereafter” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, in which the defendant received a late notice of claim less than one month after the expiration of the 90-day period, which it accepted and with respect to which it conducted an examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, the defendant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period … . Brunson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07618, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MUNICIPAL LAW, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT)

,

DEFENSE EXPERT’S CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THE NEGLIGENT PRESCRIPTION OF TWO DRUGS CAUSED HEART DAMAGE.

The Court of Appeals, with a concurrence and a three-judge dissent, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied in this medical malpractice action. The complaint alleged the negligent prescription of two drugs caused heart damage. The majority concluded that conclusory statements in the defense expert’s affidavit did not raise a question of fact about the plaintiff’s allegations of malpractice:

Here, defendant’s expert proffered only conclusory assertions unsupported by any medical research that defendant’s actions in prescribing both drugs concurrently did not proximately cause plaintiff’s AV heart block. These conclusory statements did not adequately address plaintiff’s allegations that the concurrent Lipitor and azithromycin prescriptions caused plaintiff’s injuries. By ignoring the possible effect of the azithromycin prescription, defendant’s expert failed to “tender[] sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” … as to proximate causation and, as a result, defendant was not entitled to summary judgment. Because defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … .  Pullman v Silverman, 2016 NY Slip Op 07107, CtApp 11-1-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENSE EXPERT’S CONCLUSORY ASSEERTIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THE NEGLIGENT PRESCRIPTION OF TWO DRUGS CAUSED HEART DAMAGE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENSE EXPERT’S CONCLUSORY ASSEERTIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THE NEGLIGENT PRESCRIPTION OF TWO DRUGS CAUSED HEART DAMAGE)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH.

The First Department, over a two justice dissent, determined plaintiffs’ experts had presented sufficient evidence to warrant a Frye hearing in this medical malpractice case. The plaintiffs’ baby suffered neurological damage caused by a rapidly growing tumor. The question tackled by the experts was whether the tumor was detectable prior to birth (ultrasound). The majority concluded plaintiffs’ experts had presented sufficient evidence that the tumor may have been detectable to warrant a hearing. The dissent argued the evidence presented by the plaintiffs’ experts was not sufficient to raise a question of fact:

Defendant’s experts established a prima facie case that the ultrasound studies were properly interpreted and that none of defendant’s acts or omissions caused the infant plaintiff’s alleged injuries. In light of plaintiffs’ expert opinions to the contrary, however, we cannot hold on the record presented to us that the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts are not generally accepted within the medical and scientific communities. Accordingly, the motion court properly set the matter down for a Frye hearing … to determine (1) whether it is generally accepted in the medical and scientific communities that a physician may offer an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to when a tumor such as the infant plaintiff’s tumor would have been detectable by ultrasound examination; and (2) whether it was possible to use any formula, including a doubling formula, to assess whether a neuroblastoma would have been detectable at the ultrasound of the infant plaintiff performed at 30.9 weeks … .

The dissent’s assertion that the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts were “speculative” and “unsupported by the record” puts the cart before the horse. As noted above, plaintiffs’ experts based their opinions partially on peer-reviewed, published articles stating that routine prenatal sonography had detected fetal neuroblastomas. Whether the information conveyed in these articles has gained general acceptance in the medical community, and thus provides support for the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, is precisely the topic of a Frye hearing. Sepulveda v Dayal, 2016 NY Slip Op 06949, 1st Dept 10-25-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH)

, , ,

MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY.

NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s expert’s testimony. The “expert-evidence” notice indicated the expert would testify about the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death but did not indicate the substance of the testimony. At trial the expert did not agree with the cause described in the autopsy report (pneumonia) and testified death was attributable to cardiac arrhythmia. The motion to strike argued the “expert notice” was deficient because it did not provide any detail about the expert’s opinion. Because the lack of detail was obvious pre-trial, the mid-trial objection was properly overruled:

Plaintiff made her motion mid-trial immediately prior to the expert’s testimony. Plaintiff argues that at the time of the expert exchange, she had no reason to object to the disclosure statement because the statement gave no indication that defendant would challenge plaintiff’s theory of decedent’s cause of death. Assuming defendant’s disclosure was deficient, such deficiency was readily apparent; the disclosure identified “causation” as a subject matter but did not provide any indication of a theory or basis for the expert’s opinion. This is not analogous to a situation in which a party’s disclosure was misleading or the trial testimony was inconsistent with the disclosure. Rather, the issue here was insufficiency.

The trial court’s ruling did not endorse the sufficiency of the statement but instead addressed the motion’s timeliness. The lower courts were entitled to determine, based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case, that the time to challenge the statement’s content had passed because the basis of the objection was readily apparent from the face of the disclosure statement and could have been raised — and potentially cured — before trial. Rivera v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06854, CtApp 10-20-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT EVIDENCE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS.

The Second Department, although agreeing with Supreme Court that aspects the damages award in this medical malpractice case were excessive, determined Supreme Court did not have the power to simply reduce the damages amounts. Rather, Supreme Court should have granted the motion to set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial unless the parties stipulate to the reduced damages:

… [I]t was procedurally improper for the Supreme Court to enter a judgment reducing the awards for future medical care, future medications, future physical and occupational therapy from age 21, future speech therapy from age 21, future medical equipment, future medical supplies, future loss of earning capacity, past pain and suffering, and future pain and suffering without granting a new trial on those issues unless the plaintiffs stipulated to reduce the verdict … . Reilly v St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06485, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/DAMAGES (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS)

, , ,

EXPERT’S INABILITY TO QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DIMINISHED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CHANCE OF A BETTER OUTCOME DID NOT JUSTIFY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (on the issue of causation) should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the delay in diagnosing or failure to diagnose plaintiff’s decedent’s condition diminished plaintiff’s decedent’s chance of a better outcome. Plaintiff’s expert’s inability to quantify the extent to which defendants’ conduct diminished the chance of a better outcome did not render the proof insufficient:

In order to establish proximate causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care “was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury” (PJI 2:70…). Where, as here, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant negligently failed or delayed in diagnosing and treating a condition, a finding that the negligence was a proximate cause of an injury to the patient may be predicated on the theory that the defendant thereby “diminished [the patient’s] chance of a better outcome,” in this case, survival … . In that instance, the plaintiff must present evidence from which a rational jury could infer that there was a “substantial possibility” that the patient was denied a chance of the better outcome as a result of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of care … . However, “[a] plaintiff’s evidence of proximate cause may be found legally sufficient even if his or her expert is unable to quantify the extent to which the defendant’s act or omission decreased the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome . . . , as long as evidence is presented from which the jury may infer that the defendant’s conduct diminished the [patient’s] chance of a better outcome’ … . Clune v Moore, 2016 NY Slip Op 06331, 4th Dept 9-30-16

 

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants did not submit sufficient evidence to warrant dismissal of the “lack of informed consent” cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the breast implants she received were not of the type and size she requested . The proof submitted by the defendants did not demonstrate the consent form at issued complied with the standard for disclosure in this context:

Although the defendants demonstrated that they cannot be held liable for lack of informed consent based upon the size of the implants used, the defendants failed to establish that they cannot be held liable for lack of informed consent based on the type of implants used. The consent forms signed by the plaintiff stated that she would be receiving “gel” implants, but did not identify the particular brand or manufacturer of the implants. Although the defendants’ expert averred that the operative report indicated that “Palaia explained the risks, benefits and alternatives to [the plaintiff] prior to the procedure,” and noted that consent forms were signed, he failed to aver that “the consent form complied with the prevailing standard for such disclosures applicable to reasonable practitioners performing the same kind of surgery” … . Whitnum v Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, P.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 05710, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/INFORMED CONSENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED.

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict, determined the trial court should not have given the jury the “error in judgment” charge in this medical malpractice action. Plaintiff alleged defendant negligently diagnosed a lump as benign without any further diagnostic tests. The “error in judgment” theory does not apply in that circumstance:

… Supreme Court erred in giving an “error in judgment” charge (PJI 2:150 ¶ 5) over the plaintiff’s objection. “That charge is appropriate only in a narrow category of medical malpractice cases in which there is evidence that defendant physician considered and chose among several medically acceptable treatment alternatives” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this case does not present a choice between one of two or more medically acceptable alternative treatments or techniques … . Rather, the defendant testified that he diagnosed the decedent, in January of 2002, with a benign condition “that was not urgent,” and he neither suspected cancer nor considered the option of sending the decedent for further diagnostic testing. Thus, the case presented the jury with the straightforward question of whether the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care in diagnosing the decedent with a benign condition in January of 2002, and the “error in judgment” charge was not warranted … . Lacqua v Silich, 2016 NY Slip Op 05628, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)/MEDICAL MAPRACTICE ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)/JURY CHARGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)/ERROR IN JUDGMENT CHARGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, ERROR IN JUDGMENT JURY CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED)

,

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

The Third Department reversed the damages verdict in this medical malpractice action because of an erroneous comparative negligence jury instruction. Plaintiff, while at defendant hospital, has a seizure after he was given hot coffee. Plaintiff was burned when the coffee spilled on him. Although the comparative negligence instruction was appropriate with regard to whether plaintiff should have been given coffee, it was not appropriate with regard to the treatment for the burns:

A comparative negligence instruction is appropriate when there is evidence that a plaintiff may share responsibility for harm that was inflicted as a result of a defendant’s medical malpractice … . However, no comparative negligence instruction should be given when a plaintiff’s alleged negligence preceded the alleged medical malpractice and is not otherwise alleged to have contributed to the harm resulting from the malpractice. A plaintiff’s prior conduct “is not relevant, since the defendant’s liability extends only to that portion of [the plaintiff’s] injuries attributable to the defendant’s malpractice” … . Here, although there was evidence from which the jury could have found that plaintiff shared responsibility for the initial coffee spill, defendant made no claim at trial that plaintiff had any such shared responsibility for defendant’s subsequent deviations from the accepted standard of care in treating plaintiff’s injuries, nor was there any evidence adduced at trial from which the jury could have found that plaintiff shared such responsibility … . Vallone v Saratoga Hosp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05526, 3rd Dept 7-14-16

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)/JURY INSTRUCTION (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE)

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