Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of New York Presbyterian Hospital in a medical malpractice action. The plaintiff alleged that the hospital failed to timely perform a cesarean section after she began actively bleeding due to placenta previa, causing severe developmental and neurological injuries to her infant. The court found that the plaintiff's expert opinions created a triable issue of fact regarding departure from accepted medical practice and causation, and determined that the experts did not raise new theories of malpractice or surprise the defendant. Accordingly, the complaint against the hospital was reinstated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the expert testimony created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the negligence claim against NYPH.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because the experts’ opinions created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the delayed cesarean section caused the infant’s injuries.
Key quotations
“The expert's opinion — that the delay in doing so caused the infant's injuries because the blood loss, whether from fetal or maternal bleeding from placenta previa, reduced the blood supply to the placenta, which resulted in less oxygen to the infant during that delay — falls within this allegation.” (at 1)
Factual background
Mirna Acosta, on behalf of her infant, alleged that New York Presbyterian Hospital failed to perform a timely cesarean section after she began actively bleeding from a placenta previa, causing the infant’s developmental and neurological injuries.
Procedural history
Supreme Court, Bronx County entered a judgment on Aug. 22, 2023 dismissing the complaint against NYPH and, on Aug. 16, 2023, granted NYPH’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, vacated the judgment, denied the motion and reinstated the complaint.
Remand instructions
Complaint reinstated as against New York Presbyterian Hospital.