The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined a new trial was necessary in a case stemming from 81-year-old plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from an examining table in a doctor’s office. The Third Department found that the trial judge fashioned a jury instruction which erroneously included premises liability principles and erroneously failed to take into account the particular infirmities of plaintiff’s decedent. In addition the trial court erroneously determined the case sounded in negligence, as opposed to medical malpractice:

Recovery in a premises liability action is predicated on “ownership, occupancy, control or special use of [a] property” where a dangerous or defective condition exists … . Here, decedent neither alleged that [defendant’s] liability arose from its ownership of dangerous or defective premises nor that any defects or dangerous conditions existed … . Instead, decedent asserted that [defendant] was liable for the acts and omissions of its employees in failing to recognize the need for, or provide decedent with, adequate assistance and supervision — an analysis unrelated to the physical condition of the medical office or the legal principles underlying premises liability. Supreme Court’s attempt to combine the two concepts resulted in an instruction that improperly advised the jury that decedent was required to prove that the premises were unsafe. Moreover, the instruction confusingly directed the jury to evaluate the actions of the medical assistant twice, first by determining whether her actions were “reasonably safe” and then — without clarifying the distinction, if there is one — whether those same actions were negligent.

The modified instruction further misstated the threshold issue of the applicable duty of care. “Although the existence of a duty is a question of law to be determined by the courts, the factfinder must be instructed on the nature and scope of such duty so as to ascertain any breach thereof” … . The modified instruction used the language of PJI 2:90 to charge the jury that “[t]he possessor of a building has a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the protection of all persons whose presence is reasonably foreseeable,” followed by new language advising the jury that “[a] facility also has a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to ensure that no unnecessary harm befalls a patient.” The first of the two statements pertains to premises liability and, as previously discussed, is inapplicable here. The second statement, although not inapplicable to a negligence analysis, is incomplete. It is well settled that a medical facility used by persons who may be ill, disabled or otherwise vulnerable “ha[s] a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in safeguarding a patient, based in part on the capacity of the patient to provide for his [or her] own safety” … . “The degree of reasonable care is measured by the physical and mental infirmities of the patient[] as the [facility’s] officials and employees know them” … . * * *

The assessment of a patient’s risk of falling as a result of his or her medical condition, and the patient’s consequent need for assistance, protective equipment or supervision, are medical determinations that sound in malpractice … . Likewise, whether Horizon breached applicable standards of care for medical offices in supervising and assisting decedent in view of her medical condition “necessitates a comparison to the standard of care customarily exercised by [comparable medical facilities] . . . [that] cannot be determined without a full appreciation and understanding of the operational demands and practices of [such facilities]” and raises issues of malpractice rather than negligence … .

Expert testimony is a necessary part of a malpractice action, as the plaintiff is required to establish the relevant professional standard of care … . This case hinges upon a malpractice standard. Martuscello v Jensen, 2015 NY Slip Op 07711, 3rd Dept 10-22-15