Rashada v. Ahmed

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified an order in a medical malpractice action involving delayed diagnosis and treatment of synovial sarcoma in the plaintiff's hand. The court held that the Ahmed defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because factual issues remained regarding deviation from the standard of care and causation, and that the plaintiff likewise failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment. The court granted defendant Eric L. Snitzer, M.D.'s cross-motion in part, dismissing the claim that he negligently failed to recommend a biopsy, while leaving the remaining claims for trial.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because her own submissions, including the testimony of Ahmed and Snitzer, raised issues of fact regarding whether defendants deviated from the applicable standard of care.
2. The Ahmed defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because they met their initial burden through a detailed, specific, and factual affirmation addressing each negligence claim, but plaintiff raised triable issues of fact on both deviation and proximate cause through expert affirmations.
3. Snitzer was not entitled to summary judgment on the claim that he improperly interpreted the 2018 MRI because, although he established prima facie lack of causation through an expert orthopedic surgical oncologist, plaintiff's plastic-surgeon expert offered contrary testimony that the interpretation delayed diagnosis and reduced the chance of limb-salvage surgery.
4. Snitzer was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim that he was negligent for failing to recommend a biopsy because, as a radiologist, he did not assume a general duty to schedule or urge further testing or to diagnose or treat the underlying medical condition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that defendants deviated from acceptable medical practice and that the deviation proximately caused her injury.
2. Whether the Ahmed defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the malpractice claims and, if so, whether plaintiff raised triable issues of fact.
3. Whether Snitzer established entitlement to summary judgment on causation and whether plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact through competing expert proof.
4. Whether a radiologist assumed a general duty to recommend a biopsy or otherwise schedule or urge further testing based on the MRI.

Disposition

affirmed