Narrative Opinion Summary
In a medical malpractice case, an infant represented by her mother filed a lawsuit against Dr. Georges Sylvestre and New York-Presbyterian Hospital following the birth of the infant with severe brain injuries due to premature birth. The legal issue centered around the medical treatment provided by Dr. Sylvestre, who opted for progesterone vaginal suppositories over a surgical procedure known as cerclage to address cervical incompetence diagnosed at approximately 20 weeks of pregnancy. The Supreme Court of New York County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Dr. Sylvestre had adhered to the standard of care as supported by expert testimony. The decision was upheld by the appellate court, which found no triable issue concerning the standard of care, as the plaintiffs' expert did not contend that Dr. Sylvestre's treatment choice was a departure from accepted medical standards. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, with the court ruling on November 1, 2016, and no costs were awarded.
Legal Issues Addressed
Role of Expert Testimony in Establishing Standard of Caresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relied on expert testimony to establish that the treatment option chosen by Dr. Sylvestre did not deviate from accepted medical standards, leading to the dismissal of the case.
Reasoning: The plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged cerclage as a preferable option but did not claim that Dr. Sylvestre’s choice to prescribe progesterone constituted a departure from accepted medical standards.
Standard of Care in Medical Malpracticesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Dr. Sylvestre's decision to prescribe progesterone was within the accepted standard of care for treating cervical incompetence, as supported by expert testimony.
Reasoning: The defendants presented expert testimony indicating that the mother was not a candidate for cerclage and that progesterone treatment was recognized in literature as effective for her condition.
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants due to the absence of a triable issue of fact concerning the alleged departure from medical standards.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, affirming that Dr. Sylvestre acted within the standard of care.