Byrne v. Finch

2025 NY Slip Op 03463 · Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department · June 6, 2025 · No. 410 CA 24-00180

Summary

This Appellate Division, Fourth Department decision reviews a trial court order partially granting defendants' motions for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. The court held that while defendants met their initial burden to show no deviation from the standard of care, plaintiffs successfully raised triable issues of fact by submitting an expert affidavit alleging failure to timely diagnose and transfer the patient. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment, noting a classic battle of the experts precluded dismissal.

Court
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Bannister, J.P.; Montour; Smith; Hannah, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 6, 2025
Docket number
410 CA 24-00180
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (Gregory R. Gilbert, J.) entered Jan. 2, 2024, which denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Dana Finch, D.O., Oswego Hospital v. John Byrne, Debra Byrne
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

professional negligencesummary judgmentnegligenceappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

tortscivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendants satisfied their initial burden on summary judgment in a medical‑malpractice action
  2. Whether the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an expert affidavit
  3. Whether an expert’s opinion on serial EKGs creates a new theory of liability for negligence

Holdings

  1. Defendants met their initial burden by showing no deviation from the applicable standard of care or that any alleged deviation did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
  2. Plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact because their expert affidavit identified a deviation from the standard of care and a proximate causal link to the injury.
  3. The expert’s opinion on serial EKGs does not constitute a new theory of liability; it falls within the existing negligence claim of failing to timely order medical tests.

Key quotations

In moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, a defendant has "the initial burden of establishing either that there was no deviation or departure from the applicable standard of care or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff's injuries" (Occhino v. Fan, 151 AD3d 1870, 1871 [4th Dept 2017]). (151 AD3d at 1870)
The burden shifted to plaintiffs to raise triable issues of fact by submitting an expert's affidavit both attesting to a departure from the accepted standard of care and that defendants' departure from that standard of care was a proximate cause of the injuries (Isensee v. Upstate Orthopedics, LLP, 174 AD3d 1520, 1522 [4th Dept 2019]). (174 AD3d at 1520)

Factual background

John Byrne presented to Oswego Hospital’s emergency department with severe chest pain. Dr. Dana Finch, the attending physician, failed to promptly diagnose a myocardial infarction and delayed transfer to a facility with a catheterization lab. Byrne survived but sustained permanent heart damage.

Procedural history

The trial court granted defendants' summary‑judgment motions on the negligent supervision and training claims and denied the remaining motions. Defendants appealed the denial of their motions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…