Narrative Opinion Summary
An appeal was filed by defendants F.F. Thompson Hospital, Inc. and others against an order from the Supreme Court of Ontario County, which denied their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case brought by plaintiffs Cheryl A. Haas and William K. Haas. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court found that even if the defendants initially met their burden, the plaintiffs successfully raised triable issues of fact by providing an affidavit from their medical expert. The differing expert opinions regarding the defendants' alleged deviations from the accepted standard of medical care and their impact on the injuries sustained by Cheryl A. Haas presented credibility issues that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage. The court referenced precedents supporting its decision, highlighting that such disputes are inappropriate for summary judgment resolution.
Legal Issues Addressed
Credibility Issues in Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presence of credibility issues, as demonstrated by conflicting expert opinions, precludes the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Reasoning: The differing expert opinions regarding the defendants' alleged deviations from the accepted standard of medical care and their impact on the injuries sustained by Cheryl A. Haas presented credibility issues that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage.
Expert Testimony and Triable Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiffs' expert testimony contradicted the defendants' assertions, creating a dispute over the standard of care that must be resolved at trial rather than at the summary judgment stage.
Reasoning: The differing expert opinions regarding the defendants' alleged deviations from the accepted standard of medical care and their impact on the injuries sustained by Cheryl A. Haas presented credibility issues that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage.
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment because the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact through an expert affidavit, which created credibility issues unsuitable for summary judgment.
Reasoning: The court found that even if the defendants initially met their burden, the plaintiffs successfully raised triable issues of fact by providing an affidavit from their medical expert.