Summary
This Appellate Division, First Department decision reviews a trial court's denial of defendants' motions for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action alleging failure to diagnose a pulmonary embolism. The court held that while the plaintiff's expert raised triable issues of fact regarding the hospital's standard of care, the evidence established as a matter of law that Dr. Anthony Velasquez did not deviate from the applicable standard or proximately cause the plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, the order is modified to dismiss the complaint against Dr. Velasquez, while otherwise affirming the trial court's ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to order a CTPA on November 10, 2015
- Whether the defendants’ conduct was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries
- Whether summary judgment was proper as a matter of law
Holdings
- The appellate court modified the lower court order to dismiss the complaint as against Dr. Anthony Velasquez, M.D., finding that the expert testimony was speculative and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and therefore summary judgment was proper.
Key quotations
“the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kathy J. King, J.), entered April 1, 2025, modified, on the law, to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as against defendant Anthony Velasquez, M.D., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.” (*5)
Factual background
Ronald Roth alleged that on November 10, 2015, while being treated at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, Dr. Anthony Velasquez and the hospital failed to order a CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) to diagnose a pulmonary embolism despite his symptoms of chest pain and shortness of breath, resulting in delayed diagnosis and injury.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants appealed that order to the Appellate Division, First Department.