Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the primary care physician departed from accepted medical practice by failing to communicate elevated PSA levels to a specialist and whether that omission proximately caused the delayed diagnosis of prostate cancer. The court held that conflicting expert opinions precluded summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants met their initial burden of showing no departure from the accepted standard of care in a medical malpractice summary‑judgment motion
- Whether, given conflicting expert testimony, summary judgment is appropriate in this malpractice action
Holdings
- The defendants failed to establish that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice; therefore the burden did not shift to the plaintiff.
- Summary judgment is not appropriate where the parties present conflicting medical expert opinions.
- The order granting summary judgment is reversed and the motion is denied.
Key quotations
“On a motion for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging medical malpractice, the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing that there was no departure from good and accepted medical practice or that any alleged departure did not proximately cause the plaintiff's injuries.” (at 1)
“Where a defendant makes a prima facie showing on both elements, 'the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut the defendant's showing by raising a triable issue of fact as to both the departure element and the causation element'.” (at 1)
“'Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions'.” (at 1)
Factual background
The plaintiff underwent PSA testing ordered by his primary care physician, Dr. Rosen, in 2016‑2018. An elevated PSA in 2017 was not communicated to a referred urologist. The plaintiff was later diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2019 and sued for malpractice alleging failure to refer appropriately and to order follow‑up testing.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action in the Supreme Court, Putnam County. Defendants moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint against them. The plaintiff appealed the order.