Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
MORTILLARO, BONNIE v. ROCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
Citation: Not availableDocket: CA 11-02073
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 27, 2012; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reviewed an appeal regarding a medical malpractice action brought by Bonnie Mortillaro against Rochester General Hospital and anesthesiologists Ilya Zhavoronkov and Dominic Cortese. The appeal challenged a January 7, 2011 order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the amended complaint. The appellate court partially granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the amended complaint except for allegations against Dr. Zhavoronkov related to his failure to conduct and document a postoperative interview regarding the plaintiff’s anesthesia experience. The court found that the plaintiff claimed to have experienced intraoperative awareness during surgery, leading to significant psychological distress requiring inpatient psychiatric treatment, including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The plaintiff alleged negligence against Dr. Zhavoronkov for improper anesthesia administration, inadequate monitoring, and failure to conduct and document a postoperative interview. Dr. Cortese faced allegations for not including Dr. Zhavoronkov in a follow-up meeting and failing to validate the plaintiff's claims of intraoperative awareness. The court concluded that the lower court erred in denying summary judgment for Dr. Cortese and partially for Dr. Zhavoronkov, reinforcing the requirement that a party seeking summary judgment must initially demonstrate entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, which then shifts the burden to the opposing party to present sufficient evidence of material factual issues. The modified order affirmed the dismissal of most claims against the defendants, maintaining only those concerning Dr. Zhavoronkov's alleged failure to conduct and document the postoperative interview. In a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff opposing a defendant physician's summary judgment must provide evidence to counter the defendant's demonstration of non-negligence. The defendants successfully established their case regarding Dr. Cortese by presenting his deposition, which explained the decision not to include Dr. Zhavoronkov in a postoperative meeting, asserting that as an anesthesiologist, he could assess claims of intraoperative awareness. The court found no medical negligence in this decision. Additionally, an expert for the defendants asserted that Dr. Cortese had a valid basis for not validating the plaintiff’s claim of intraoperative awareness; the plaintiff's expert did not contest this opinion. Furthermore, the plaintiff's psychiatrist indicated that she would have administered ECT regardless of Dr. Cortese's conclusions, indicating no liability on his part, and the plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact. Regarding Dr. Zhavoronkov, the defendants met their burden by demonstrating that he adhered to the standard of care in administering anesthesia and monitoring the plaintiff. The plaintiff's expert did not dispute these assertions, even acknowledging that Dr. Zhavoronkov's actions met the required standard. However, there was enough evidence to raise a triable issue concerning Dr. Zhavoronkov's postoperative interview with the plaintiff. His deposition indicated he spoke to the plaintiff post-surgery, but his recollection was based on illegible surgical records, while the plaintiff claimed she did not speak with him. Thus, there remains a factual dispute regarding this aspect of care.