J.L. v. Sklar

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed portions of a Supreme Court, Kings County, order granting summary judgment to an obstetrician, her practice, and a medical center in a medical malpractice action. The court held that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment because their expert submissions did not address specific malpractice allegations or eliminate triable issues concerning labor induction, vacuum extraction, cesarean delivery, hospital staff negligence, and causation. The court also reversed the dismissal of derivative loss-of-services claims.

Holdings

1. Sklar and Boro Park failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because their expert affirmation did not address specific malpractice allegations and did not eliminate triable issues concerning the medication dosage, vacuum extraction, possible need for emergency cesarean section, and proximate causation.
2. Maimonides failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because its experts did not eliminate triable issues concerning independent negligent acts by hospital staff, and its neonatologist's affirmation was conclusory and insufficient.
3. The loss-of-services claims also should not have been dismissed because they are derivative and the medical-malpractice claims against the defendants remained viable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sklar and Boro Park established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the medical-malpractice claims by demonstrating no departure from accepted medical practice or no proximate causation.
2. Whether Maimonides established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by eliminating triable issues concerning independent negligence by its employees and proximate causation.
3. Whether the derivative loss-of-services claims should also be dismissed on summary judgment.

Disposition

reversed