You are here: / Medical Malpractice
, , ,

THE LABOR LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JOINED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to join or consolidate the Labor Law construction accident causes of action with the medical malpractice action stemming from the injuries should not have been granted:

Plaintiff commenced suit in Kings County against several construction-related entities alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence in connection with a work place accident causing injuries. After the accident plaintiff was taken to a NYCHHC facility for treatment. Plaintiff also commenced this suit in New York County against NYCHHC, alleging medical malpractice in connection with his post-accident treatment. Although the Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action involve common questions of fact, the medical malpractice action involves numerous additional allegations of professional negligence and injuries that are irrelevant to the Labor law action, and there are no common defendants.

The issues and applicable legal principles presented in plaintiff’s Labor Law action and this medical malpractice action arising out of his subsequent treatment, are so dissimilar that joinder or consolidation pursuant to CPLR 602(a) would not be beneficial and would likely result in jury confusion … . Licona-Rubio v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04722, First Dept 9-26-23

Practice Point: Even though the construction-accident injuries were the basis for the medical malpractice action, the Labor Law and medical malpractice actions (against different defendants) should not have been joined or consolidated.

 

, ,

THE EXPERT AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPPRACTICE ACTION WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the expert affidavits were conclusory and did not address all the allegations made by plaintiff. Therefore defendant’s (St. Luke’s) motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The expert nurse and expert neurologist on whose affidavits St. Luke’s relied merely averred in a conclusory manner that the decedent could not have been monitored in a way to prevent her fall, that St. Luke’s implemented every appropriate fall risk procedure before the decedent’s fall, and that the decedent’s fall and the resulting subdural hematoma were not substantial factors in causing the decedent’s death … . The expert nurse also did not submit the fall risk assessment or hospital fall prevention policy in accordance with which, she claimed, the decedent was monitored … . Because St. Luke’s did not carry its prima facie burden on its motion, Supreme Court should have denied defendant’s motion with respect to those predicates, regardless of the sufficiency of the moving papers … .

As for the remaining predicates for plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim, St. Luke’s did not address them in its moving papers, nor did its experts address them in their affidavits. Accordingly, St. Luke’s did not establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing them … . Martir v St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 04478, First Dept 8-31-23

Practice Point: To warrant summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, the expert affidavits cannot be conclusory and must address all of the relevant allegations.

 

, ,

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND RELIED ON A DISPUTED FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice actions should not have been granted. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent was not properly treated for a stroke. The defendants’ experts did not address all the allegations in the bills of particulars and relied on a disputed fact:

… [T]he expert physician for the defendants …, failed to address all of the specific allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of particulars … . Because [the] affirmation relied upon a disputed fact, specifically that the decedent’s condition was improving … , it was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that.[defendants] did not deviate or depart from accepted medical practice or that such deviation or departure was not a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries … . Hiegel v Orange Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 04434, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: In a medical malpractice action, at the summary judgment stage, the defense experts must address all the allegations in the bill of particulars and may not rely on facts which are disputed.

 

, , , ,

THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES IS APPEALABLE; DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TO NON-PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from asserting the negligence of non-parties (CPLR article 16 defenses) as an affirmative defenses. The court noted that, although the a ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable, a ruling on a motion which seeks to limit the legal theories which can be asserted is appealable:

“Generally, an order ruling [on a motion in limine], 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” … . There is, however, “a distinction between an order that ‘limits the admissibility of evidence,’ which is not appealable . . . , and one that ‘limits the legal theories of liability to be tried’ or the scope of the issues at trial, which is appealable” … . * * *

… [D]efendants are entitled to assert their CPLR article 16 defenses regarding the nonparty providers. “As provided in CPLR 1601 (1), a defendant may raise the CPLR article 16 defense regarding a nonparty tortfeasor, provided that the plaintiff could obtain jurisdiction over that party” … . Here, defendants are entitled to raise their pleaded affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR article 16 … because plaintiff could have sought to maintain an action against the nonparty providers in Supreme Court … .

The crux of the issue on appeal is whether defendants were required, in response to plaintiff’s demands for bills of particulars, to particularize the pleaded CPLR article 16 defense, and thus whether the court properly precluded them from asserting that defense at trial when they did not timely particularize that defense. We conclude that no such particularization was required under the circumstances of this case, and thus that the court erred in precluding defendants from asserting the CPLR article 16 defense at trial. Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04273, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: Motions in limine generally are not appealable. But motions seeking to preclude legal theories of liability are appealable.

Practice Point: Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from presenting CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses on the ground the defenses were not particularized in the bill of particulars. It was not clear the demands related to the CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses.

 

, ,

DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ CLAIMS THAT DEFENDANTS PROVIDED PROPER CARE AND ADVICE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WERE BELIED BY THE MEDICAL RECORDS AS EXPLAINED BY PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s experts in this medical malpractice action raised questions of fact about the negligence of each defendant. The decision is fact-specific and far too detailed to fairly summarize, but it provides insight into when expert affidavits are deemed sufficiently substantive to raise questions of fact:

… [W]hen viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we find that the record raises several questions of fact as to whether each defendant satisfied the standard of care applicable to him or it … . Despite that each defendant and their respective experts opined that decedent was not presenting with the signs or symptoms of a stroke, this is belied by the medical record, which establishes that decedent was experiencing a stroke and/or vertebral artery dissection during the relevant time period that they treated decedent and presented with the “classic” symptoms associated with a stroke. At a minimum, these differing opinions create a question of fact, which plaintiff’s experts highlighted in so far that each defendant deviated from the standard of care by failing to refer decedent to a specialist or neurologist … . McCarthy v Town of Massena, N.Y. (Massena Mem. Hosp.)2023 NY Slip Op 03959, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: Here the medical records as explained by plaintiff’s experts raised questions of fact about whether plaintiff’s decedent was exhibiting symptoms of a stroke at the time defendants treated him, a diagnosis defendants allegedly failed to make.

 

, , , , ,

ORDERS COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS OR PRECLUDING QUESTIONING ARE NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; A REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AFTER THE APPEAL IS PERFECTED IS GENERALLY DENIED; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SUBJECT MEDICAL RECORDS WERE PRIVILEGED AS PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) there is no appeal as of right from the denial of a motion to compel a witness to answer deposition questions, (2) there is no appeal as of right from a protective order precluding certain questioning, (3) an appellate court will generally not consider a request for permission to appeal made after the appeal is perfected, (4) the hospital did not demonstrate certain medical records were privileged as part of a quality assurance review:

… [T]he plaintiffs sought leave to appeal after their appeal was perfected. As this Court has repeatedly observed under comparable circumstances, “‘we are disinclined to grant leave to parties who have taken it upon themselves to perfect an appeal without leave to appeal'” … . * * *

Pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3), certain documents generated in connection with the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function,” or reports “required by the department of health pursuant to [Public Health Law § 2805-l],” are generally not discoverable … . Nyack Hospital, as the party seeking to invoke the privilege, had the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes … . Nyack Hospital merely asserted that a privilege applied to the requested documents without making any showing as to why the privilege attached. Martino v Jae Ho Lee, 2023 NY Slip Op 03915, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: If an order is not appealable as of right (here orders re: compelling answers or precluding questions during deposition), the appellate court will not generally grant permission to appeal after the appeal is perfected.

Practice Point:  Here in this med mal case the hospital did not demonstrate the medical records were privileged as part of a quality assurance review.

 

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS, PRECLUSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION; PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY FINED $5000 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined preclusion of evidence in this medical malpractice case as a sanction for failure to provide discovery was too severe a sanction. The appellate court imposed a monetary sanction on plaintiff’s attorney:

Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s trial counsel engaged in willful and contumacious conduct which delayed resolution of this case, and the record supports such a finding. Defense counsel requested an amended bill of particulars in May 2019 and an amended expert disclosure in October 2019. Despite a plethora of emails and letters from defense counsel, various conferences, scheduling orders and an order compelling compliance with discovery, plaintiff’s trial counsel failed to correct the deficiencies in the discovery disclosure prior to defendant filing a motion for sanctions. Under these circumstances, we agree with Supreme Court that the conduct exhibited by plaintiff’s trial counsel was willful and contumacious and that, upon such finding, the drastic sanction of preclusion was available … . * * *

Having considered the record as a whole, including the supplemental discovery disclosures, the affidavit of merit, the lack of prejudice to defendant and the nature and root of the misconduct, we vacate the August 2022 order that precluded plaintiff from proffering certain evidence and expert witnesses. Exercising our discretion, and given the strong public policy favoring resolution of actions on the merits, we accept the late amended bill of particulars as responsive to the outstanding demand … .. However, the willful and contumacious misconduct by plaintiff’s trial counsel cannot be condoned, as disregard of court orders hinders the efficient resolution of cases … . To dissuade this conduct from repeating, we impose a monetary sanction on plaintiff’s trial counsel in the amount of $5,000 … . M.F. v Albany Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 03896, Third Dept 7-20-23

Practice Point: Here the appellate court determined the preclusion of evidence, including expert evidence, in this medical malpractice action was too severe a sanction for disobeying discovery orders. The attorney was fined $5000 for willful and contumacious conduct.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s expert evidence in this medical malpractice case was not conclusory or speculative and was sufficient to raise a question of fact. The decision is fact-specific and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [T]he internist [plaintiff’s expert] specifically opined that earlier intubation …  would have produced a “70% chance of survival” by preventing the anoxic brain injury and allowing the sepsis, respiratory distress and ARDS symptoms to be treated. The internist also stated that earlier intubation would have made it “more likely than not” that decedent’s “clinical condition would have improved.” When giving plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences as the nonmoving parties, a rational juror could infer that decedent would have had a better chance at recovering from the necrotizing pancreatitis and related sepsis and ARDS if she had been intubated … prior to the second rapid response event … . Thus, we conclude that the internist’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to causation, warranting denial of defendants’ summary judgment motion … . Sovocool v Cortland Regional Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 03826, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: Although this med mal decision is fact-specific, it provides some insight into when an expert’s affidavit can be rejected as conclusory or speculative. The affidavit here was deemed sufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

, ,

APPELLANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT HAD LEFT DEFENDANT-PRACTICE AT THE TIME THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRACTICE; THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE SUIT; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO ADD THE APPELLANT AS A DEFENDANT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to amend the complaint to add appellant, a physician’s assistant, to this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. The statute of limitations has run and the relation-back theory was not supported by evidence appellant had timely notice of the suit. Appellant had stopped working for defendant practice at the time the suit was commenced:

“In order for a claim asserted against a new defendant to relate back to the date the claim was filed against another defendant, the plaintiffs must establish that (1) both claims arose out of [the] same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the new defendant is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with notice of the institution of the action such that he [or she] will not be prejudiced in maintaining his [or her] defense on the merits; and (3) the new defendant knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiffs as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him [or her] as well” … . “The linchpin of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden as to the third prong of the relation-back doctrine. The record establishes that the appellant was no longer working for the practice at the time of the commencement of the action, and there is no evidence that she had actual or constructive knowledge within the limitations period of the commencement of the action … . Dixon v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 03336, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: To add a defendant to a complaint after the statute of limitations has run under the relation-back doctrine, plaintiff must demonstrate the party to be added had timely notice of the suit, not the case here.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT PEDIATRIC PRACTICE SUBMITTED EXPERT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S ADOLESCENT SCOLIOSIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED UNTIL A YEAR AFTER PLAINTIFF LEFT DEFENDANT’S CARE; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant pediatric practice in this medical malpractice action was entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged the failure to diagnose scoliosis. Defendant submitted evidence that adolescent scoliosis could not have been diagnosed until a year after plaintiff left defendant’s care. Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit did not address that issue:

… S.V. [defendant pediatric practice] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, among other things, an affirmation of a physician board certified in orthopedic surgery. The expert opined that the care and treatment rendered by S.V.’s employees did not deviate from accepted medical practice, and that the injured plaintiff’s adolescent idiopathic scoliosis condition could not have been diagnosed until he reached adolescence, which did not occur for at least one year after he left S.V.’s care, during which time the injured plaintiff tested negative for the condition … . In opposition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, including an affirmation of a physician, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ expert failed to address the specific assertion of S.V.’s expert that the injured plaintiff did not develop adolescent idiopathic scoliosis until after he left S.V.’s care, and was otherwise speculative, conclusory, and unsupported by the record … . Lagatta v Rivera, 2023 NY Slip Op 03227, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: In this medical malpractice action, plaintiff’s expert did not address defendant’s expert’s prima facie proof on a dispositive issue. In that circumstance, defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

 

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