Summary
This Appellate Division, First Department decision affirms the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in a medical malpractice action alleging a ureteral injury during a hysterectomy. The court held that defendants made a prima facie showing that their treatment comported with accepted medical practice, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact because her expert's opinions were contradicted by the surgical record and failed to address key aspects of the defense expert's testimony. The court also affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' affirmative defense of culpable conduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim.
- Whether the appellate court should affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to strike the affirmative defense of culpable conduct.
Holdings
- The motion court properly granted defendants' summary judgment because the defendants established a prima facie entitlement through an expert affirmation that the treatment conformed to good and accepted medical practice, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
- The appellate division affirmed the trial court's denial, finding the affirmative defense properly preserved and supported by prior authority.
Key quotations
“The motion court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment through the affirmation of their medical expert, Dr. Molly Brewer, a board‑certified obstetrician and gynecologist.” ([unpaginated])
“Plaintiff's expert's failure to address Dr. Brewer's opinion that plaintiff's ureter developed damage from devascularization, which would not have been apparent during surgery, was fatal to her opposition to defendants' motion.” ([unpaginated])
Factual background
Plaintiff Alma Johnson alleged that during a hysterectomy performed by Drs. Dennis Kuo and Devin Miller at Montefiore Medical Center, her right ureter was injured, resulting in postoperative leakage. Defendants contended that ureteral injury is a known risk of hysterectomy, that they took appropriate precautions, and that the injury was due to devascularization rather than surgical error.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County entered an order on March 28, 2025 granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence claims and denying plaintiff's motion to strike the affirmative defense of culpable conduct. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.