You are here: Home / Negligence
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CREDITED BOTH EXPERTS, ONE OF WHOM OPINED DEFENDANT WAS AT RISK FOR FUTURE HEART PROBLEMS; THEREFORE THE AWARD OF ZERO DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING WAS ERROR; AWARD INCREASED BY $10,000 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the conflicting expert evidence credited by the Court of Claims forced the conclusion claimant suffered some permanent damage to his heart. Therefore awarding nothing for future pain and suffering was error. The Third Department awarded an additional $10,000:

… [T]he court accepted aspects of both experts’ opinions, crediting both the opinion of defendant’s expert cardiologist that claimant had suffered no significant permanent damage and simultaneously crediting the opinion of claimant’s expert cardiologist that claimant could develop a future arrhythmia because of his injury. As claimant argues, and based upon our review of the record, we find these opinions to be inconsistent with one another. Claimant’s cardiologist based his opinion that claimant was at risk of developing a future arrhythmia upon his opinion that claimant had suffered permanent damage to his heart muscle, consisting of weakness that would not resolve with time and that required the rest of his heart to work harder to maintain normal function. As the court noted, claimant’s cardiologist did not quantify the degree of potential risk to which he believed claimant was exposed. Nevertheless, in order to accept the opinion that claimant’s risk of suffering a future arrhythmia was increased, the court must necessarily also have credited the cardiologist’s opinion that claimant had suffered some, albeit limited, degree of permanent injury.

We thus find that the award of no damages for future pain and suffering deviates from reasonable compensation. Serrano v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00458, Third Dept 1-23-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOSPITAL MAY BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT PROVIDED BY A NON-EMPLOYEE IN THE HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the hospital, Good Samaritan, was vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of a physician, Chin, who, although not a hospital employee, treated plaintiff in the hospital emergency room:

“In general, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital may be held vicariously liable for the negligence or malpractice of its employees acting within the scope of employment, but not for negligent treatment provided by an independent physician, as when the physician is retained by the patient himself” … . However, “[a]n exception to this general rule exists where a plaintiff seeks to hold a hospital vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of an attending physician who is not its employee where a patient comes to the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient’s choosing” … . …

Here, although Good Samaritan established that Chin was not its employee, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Good Samaritan’s emergency room seeking treatment from a privately selected physician rather than from the hospital itself … . Fuessel v Chin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00404, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/0 Comments/by
,

IT WAS ALLEGED ONE MAN INTENDED TO DOUSE ANOTHER WITH LIQUID IN A CUP BUT UNINTENTIONALLY THREW THE CUP ITSELF CAUSING INJURY; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OR AN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer’s (Unitrin’s) motion for summary judgment in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted. Apparently Sullivan was in one car and the injured party, Ciminello, was in another car when Sullivan allegedly attempted to throw liquid that was in a cup into Ciminello’s car. It was alleged that Sullivan unintentionally threw the entire cup, not just its contents, which injured Ciminello. So there was a question of fact whether Ciminello was injured by intentional conduct (not covered by insurance) or an accident (which would be covered):

Ciminello raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the harm was inherent in the intentional act committed … . Ciminello submitted evidence that, although Sullivan and his passenger intended to douse Ciminello with the liquid contained in the cup, there was no intent to throw the cup and strike Ciminello with it. As the instant case does not fall within the narrow class of cases in which the intentional act exclusion applies regardless of the insured’s subjective intent … , there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the event qualified as an “accident,” as defined by the policy … . Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co. v Sullivan, 2020 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/0 Comments/by
,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S REMARKS DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL; OVER $1 MILLION JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE/PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW ACTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the over $1 million judgment in this negligence and Public-Health-Law-2801-d violation case, determined plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks in summation required a new trial. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was at risk for falling, fell after getting up from a wheelchair a defendant residential health care facility and ultimately died:

“[L]itigants are entitled, as a matter of law, to a fair trial free from improper comments by counsel or the trial court” … . “The interest of justice thus requires a court to order a new trial where comments by an attorney for a party’s adversary deprived that party of a fair trial or unduly influenced a jury” … .

Here, during summation, the plaintiff’s counsel improperly appealed to the passion of the jurors by characterizing the defendant as a “corporation” that has “two lawyers,” a “tech person,” “general counsel,” and “video people.” Counsel also improperly accused the defendant of willfully depriving the plaintiff of evidence that would have been harmful to the defendant’s case, accused the defendant’s witnesses of having “changed” their testimony after their depositions or pretrial affirmations, which were not in evidence, “because they saw that they couldn’t win,” and improperly argued that the defendant failed to call certain witnesses, who were not under the defendant’s control. Thus, “the comments of the plaintiff[‘s] counsel . . . were not isolated, were inflammatory, and were unduly prejudicial. These prejudicial comments so tainted the proceedings as to have deprived the defendant . . . of a fair trial” … . Nieves v Clove Lakes Health Care & Rehabilitation, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00422, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

STATEMENT FROM PLAINTIFF’S OUT-OF-STATE EXPERT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; CPLR 2106 REQUIRES A SWORN AFFIDAVIT FROM A DENTIST LICENSED IN ANOTHER STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statement by a New Jersey dentist offered by the plaintiff in this dental malpractice action was not admissible because it was not in the form of a sworn affidavit. Therefore plaintiff did not raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment:

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, the unsworn affirmation of Martin, who was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of New Jersey. Consequently, the out-of-state dentist’s statement did not constitute admissible evidence in that CPLR 2106 only authorizes attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, or dentists licensed in this state to utilize an affirmation in lieu of a sworn affidavit … . …

While an otherwise qualified expert physician, osteopath, or dentist, who is not licensed in this state, may submit a statement in support of or in opposition to a party’s position in a case at bar, that statement must be in the form of a sworn affidavit. CPLR 2106(a), which permits such a statement to be in the form of an affirmation, only applies to attorneys, physicians, osteopaths, and dentists licensed to practice in the State of New York. Nelson v Lighter, 2020 NY Slip Op 00420, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should have been granted to several of the defendants in this medical malpractice action because the plaintiff’s expert did not raise a triable issue of fact. The expert did not demonstrate expertise in relevant areas and the expert’s opinions were conclusory and speculative with respect to three of the defendants. The Second Department noted that a court should not consider a theory of liability raised for the first time in opposition to a summary judgment motion:

“While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . “Thus, where a physician provides an opinion beyond his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, who specialized in general and vascular surgery, did not indicate that he or she had any special training or expertise in orthopaedics or family medicine, and failed to set forth how he or she was, or became, familiar with the applicable standards of care in these specialized areas of practice … . Further, the conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert as to Desai, Anand, and Sveilich were conclusory and speculative … , improperly based on hindsight reasoning … , and self-contradictory … . Samer v Desai, 2020 NY Slip Op 00318, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO ADVISE DECEDENT AND THE NURSE MIDWIFE AGAINST HOME BIRTH; SUCH FAILURE COULD CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED IN PART ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Defendant, Lascale, is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist specializing in maternal-fetal medicine. Plaintiff’s decedent died in childbirth when she was assisted at home by a certified nurse midwife (Moss Jones). Plaintiffs alleged Lascale negligently failed to advise decedent and Moss Jones of the dangers of a home birth given the baby’s size and the fact decedent had previously given birth by caesarian section. Lascale argued his limited role, analyzing periodic sonograms, did not include advice on delivery. The Second Department noted that the motion court, sua sponte, should not have granted defendant’s motion based in part on an issue not raised by the parties:

Although Lescale, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, purported to limit the scope of his duty to the field of maternal-fetal medicine, and the performance and interpretation of ultrasounds, it was within such limited scope of duty to consult with the decedent and Moss Jones … , concerning his diagnosis of suspected fetal macrosomia [the baby was very large], and how such diagnosis would increase the risks of a VBAC [vaginal birth after caesarian section] home birth, given all of the other risk factors that were present. Given such risks, it was also within the scope of Lescale’s duty to advise the decedent and Moss Jones against proceeding with the planned VBAC home birth. * * *

“When a question of proximate cause involves an intervening act, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” . “It is only where the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the norm… al course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct, that it may possibly break the causal nexus” … .

* * * Whether the decedent would have heeded appropriate warnings and advice by Lescale in light of, inter alia, the purported warnings she was given by Moss Jones, or her own views, is for the jury to decide … . Romanelli v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 00316, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE TRUST-ASSET-SUBSTITUTION AGREEMENT, SUBSTITUTING LIFE INSURANCE FOR CERTAIN ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1); THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT RELEASING THE TRUSTEE FROM LIABILITY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND THE TRUSTEE IS LIABLE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS WERE PAID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the 1992 agreement substituting life insurance for trust assets was covered by Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 11-1.7(a)(1) and the trustee, which owned the policies, was liable in negligence for failing to ensure the premiums were paid (the policies had lapsed). The provision of the trust-asset-substitution agreement exonerating the trustee from liability was invalid as against public policy. The matter was remitted for a determination of damages:

The Surrogate’s Court found that the 1992 agreement created a “new trust agreement” funded in part by the life insurance policies, which was not part of the testamentary trust, and therefore not governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a). The court further found that the agreement released the trustee from any promises relating to “the substitution of property,” which relieved the trustee of any “liability to monitor the investment owed to the trust,” released the trustee and any successor trustee “from any future lawsuit,” and released the trustee of any fiduciary duty to act upon Robert’s default in paying insurance premiums.

Contrary to the conclusion of the Surrogate’s Court, the agreement did not create a new trust. Rather, the agreement provided for the substitution of testamentary trust property with life insurance policies. The petitioner included the life insurance policies in its final account of the testamentary trusts as worthless assets. There is no reference to any separate accounting for the life insurance policies as part of a separate trust. Thus, the duty of the trustee was governed by EPTL 11-1.7(a)(1), which states that the exoneration of a testamentary trustee from liability for failure to exercise reasonable care, diligence, and prudence is contrary to public policy. Matter of Wilkinson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00286, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that defendants (the Infiniti defendants) were bound by an open-court stipulated settlement of $8,875,000 in this personal injury case. The attorneys had apparent authority to bind the defendants. And the defendants ratified the stipulation by failing to timely object to it:

I write to highlight the fundamental principle that parties are bound by stipulations signed in open court by their attorneys. The issue arose in the context of a negligence case, where plaintiff was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle while standing on a sidewalk median in Brooklyn. The vehicle was owned by defendant Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc. and driven by defendant Massamba Seck (the Infiniti defendants). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and required extensive hospitalization and multiple surgeries. At issue in this case is whether the Infiniti defendants are bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their attorneys. We find that the Infiniti defendants are bound, because their attorneys had apparent authority to bind them to the $8,875,000 judgment. Significantly, there is no affidavit or testimony by Infiniti stating that Infiniti, or any of its employees, was unaware of the settlement or that Infiniti did not authorize the settlement. The only ones making this claim are the lawyers from the firm that was hired by the insurance companies to defend the Infiniti defendants. The fact that one of the insurers is now unable to pay its intended $5 million portion does not inure to the Infiniti defendants’ benefit. Rather, the Infiniti defendants are responsible for the portion of the agreed-upon amounts that the insurers do not pay. To accept their position would alter the way litigation is conducted in New York State. Courts would have to conduct colloquies in every case to make sure that the parties, notwithstanding their attorneys’ actions in appearing for them on numerous occasions and signing stipulations, acquiesced in the terms of the stipulations. That is unacceptable, especially here, where the Infiniti defendants never objected to the stipulation until the filing of the instant order to show cause more than a year and six months after the stipulation was signed in open court. Pruss v Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00229, First Dept 1-9-20

 

/0 Comments/by
,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE, A SECURITY GUARD, ATTACKED HER; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF ATTACKED HIM AND HE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE; THE EMPLOYER WOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNDER EITHER SCENARIO; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the security guard’s employer’s (SEB’s) motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the security guard attacked her without provocation. The security guard alleged he acted in self defense after plaintiff and others attacked him. The employer would not be liable in either scenario:

Plaintiff Gregory testified that SEB’s employee, a security guard who was then working at a movie theater, attacked her with a box cutter and slashed her face and body with it after she tapped him on the shoulder and told him she had enjoyed the movie she had just seen. The security guard gave a different version of events and claimed that he was acting in self defense after plaintiffs and others attacked him with box cutters. However, neither version of events would give rise to liability on the part of SEB. Under plaintiff’s version of events, SEB could not be held liable because SEB’s employee’s unprovoked assault on Gregory with a box cutter was not within the scope of any duties he may have had as a security guard and was not done in furtherance of SEB’s business interests … . Under the security guard’s version of events, even assuming for purposes of this appeal that his actions were within the scope of his duties as a security guard and were done in furtherance of SEB’s business interests, SEB would not be held liable because the security guard’s actions were taken in self-defense after being attacked by patrons of the movie theater. Gregory v National Amusements, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00223, First Dept 1-9-20

 

/0 Comments/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy