Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision affirms a trial court order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action. The court found that the defendants satisfied their initial burden by submitting affirmations from two medical experts demonstrating no departure from accepted medical practice. The plaintiffs' opposing expert failed to create a triable issue of fact because the opinions were conclusory, speculative, unsupported by the record, and did not rebut the defendants' specific assertions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal with costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the amended complaint where the plaintiffs' expert testimony is conclusory, speculative, or unsupported by the record.
Holdings
- Summary judgment is affirmed because the plaintiffs' expert opinion was conclusory, speculative, and unsupported, and therefore did not raise a triable issue of fact.
Key quotations
“"Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury."” (224 AD3d 668)
Factual background
The plaintiffs are the executors of the estate of Junior Jones and his wife. The defendants, Montefiore Medical Center and Michael J. Vitti, were alleged to have failed to timely diagnose and treat an infection in the decedent's right leg and failed to admit the decedent to a hospital, resulting in loss of the leg.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs, executors of the estate of Junior Jones and his wife, sued for medical malpractice. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Kings County granted, dismissing the amended complaint. The appellants appealed.