Young v. Kamath

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified and affirmed an order denying summary judgment motions in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action arising from anticoagulation management, pacemaker procedures, deep vein thrombosis, and a fatal hemorrhagic stroke. The court held that triable issues of fact remained regarding alleged malpractice by the defendant physicians and hospital, including potential vicarious liability. It granted summary judgment dismissing the lack of informed consent claim against one physician because the defendants established adequate disclosure and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was properly denied because, although the defendants made prima facie showings, the plaintiff's expert evidence raised triable issues of fact concerning whether the defendants departed from the standard of care in managing Young's anticoagulation and whether those departures contributed to his thromboses and death.
2. The loss-of-services claim was properly allowed to proceed because it is derivative of the underlying medical-malpractice and wrongful-death claims, which presented triable issues of fact.
3. Southside Hospital was not entitled to summary judgment on the claim that it was vicariously liable for Kamath's alleged malpractice because, although Kamath was not a Southside employee, the defendants failed to establish prima facie that Young sought treatment from Kamath as a privately selected physician rather than from the hospital itself.
4. Uyguanco was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the lack-of-informed-consent claim because the defendants established that Young was informed of the reasonably foreseeable risks, benefits, and alternatives to pacemaker implantation and that a reasonably prudent patient would not have declined the procedure; the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Southside defendants established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the medical-malpractice and wrongful-death claims.
2. Whether the South Bay defendants established entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the medical-malpractice and wrongful-death claims.
3. Whether the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact through conflicting expert evidence regarding departures from the standard of care and proximate cause.
4. Whether Southside Hospital could be vicariously liable for alleged malpractice by Kamath, a physician who was not its employee.
5. Whether Uyguanco was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the lack-of-informed-consent claim.

Disposition

other