What's New...
What's New
June 2026 Medical malpractice cases can appear straightforward in their basic theory. The object is to show a medical error by defendant, or put more precisely, plaintiff must show departure from accepted medical practice which caused harm. While that part sounds easy in practice, the hard part can rest with experts. A recent dismissal demonstrated this when plaintiff's expert was challenged. Read more
The case here involved a claim of medical malpractice in the care of 90-year old patient, now a decedent in the legal action against New York Methodist Hospital, as respondent. The plaintiff, adminstrator of the estate, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County granting the defendant hospital's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff alleged that hospital failed to recognize and treat sores and ulcers that developed and worsened while in their care. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. That means they ask the court to rule that there is no triable issue of fact at hand. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion to dismiss. Now the plaintiff appealed.
There was not dispute as to the elements of medical malpractice, which include (1) a deviation or departure from accepted medical practice, and (2) evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury" (Kunwar v Northwell Health, 229 AD3d 528; Rico v New York Methodist Hosp., 242 AD3d 787, 788
The expert opinion must address specific assertions made by the movant's experts, setting forth an explanation of the reasoning and relying on specifically cited evidence in the record" (Wijesinghe v Buena Vida Corp., 210 AD3d 824, 825 [internal quotations omitted]).
The court agreed that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field, but that they should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable" (Cerrone v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 197 AD3d 449, 451). The hospital's expert opined, based upon her review of the medical records, the deposition testimony, and the pleadings, that the defendant did not depart from accepted medical practice and did not cause or contribute to the decedent's injuries (see Rico v New York Methodist Hosp., 242 AD3d 787; Corujo v Caputo, 224 AD3d 729, 732). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Read Decision - Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, decided on June 3, 2026
The case here involved a claim of medical malpractice in the care of 90-year old patient, now a decedent in the legal action against New York Methodist Hospital, as respondent. The plaintiff, adminstrator of the estate, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County granting the defendant hospital's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff alleged that hospital failed to recognize and treat sores and ulcers that developed and worsened while in their care. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. That means they ask the court to rule that there is no triable issue of fact at hand. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's summary judgment motion to dismiss. Now the plaintiff appealed.
There was not dispute as to the elements of medical malpractice, which include (1) a deviation or departure from accepted medical practice, and (2) evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury" (Kunwar v Northwell Health, 229 AD3d 528; Rico v New York Methodist Hosp., 242 AD3d 787, 788
The expert opinion must address specific assertions made by the movant's experts, setting forth an explanation of the reasoning and relying on specifically cited evidence in the record" (Wijesinghe v Buena Vida Corp., 210 AD3d 824, 825 [internal quotations omitted]).
The court agreed that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field, but that they should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable" (Cerrone v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 197 AD3d 449, 451). The hospital's expert opined, based upon her review of the medical records, the deposition testimony, and the pleadings, that the defendant did not depart from accepted medical practice and did not cause or contribute to the decedent's injuries (see Rico v New York Methodist Hosp., 242 AD3d 787; Corujo v Caputo, 224 AD3d 729, 732). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Read Decision - Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, decided on June 3, 2026
