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.
Ortiz v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 3189; 149 A.D.3d 1093; 53 N.Y.S.3d 189Docket: 2015-01557
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 26, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Ortiz v Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Wyckoff Heights Medical Center and Wyckoff Emergency Medicine Services, P.C., dismissing the medical malpractice complaint brought by Juan Ortiz and his wife. The plaintiffs alleged malpractice following Ortiz's treatment at Wyckoff Heights on May 27, 2010, for symptoms including fever and joint pain. Despite normal vital signs and a physical examination that ruled out several infections, Ortiz was diagnosed with a viral syndrome and discharged with follow-up instructions. A week later, he was admitted to another hospital and diagnosed with endocarditis. The court outlined the elements of medical malpractice as a deviation from accepted medical practice and a causal connection to the injury. It emphasized that defendants must demonstrate either the absence of such a departure or that the plaintiff was not injured as a result. The court concluded that the defendants met this burden, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. To successfully oppose a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must present a triable issue of fact regarding the specific elements of the cause of action or the theory of nonliability challenged by the moving party's initial evidence (Stukas v Streiter, 83 AD3d 18, 24). In this case, the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence, which showed they adhered to accepted medical practices in treating the plaintiff. They argued that additional diagnostic testing was unnecessary due to the plaintiff's non-specific symptoms, stable vital signs, and normal physical examination. The plaintiffs, however, did not establish a triable issue of fact, as their expert's assertion for further testing was deemed conclusory, speculative, and based on hindsight (see Schuck v Stony Brook Surgical Assoc. 140 AD3d 725, 727; Raucci v Shinbrot, 127 AD3d 839, 842-843; Lau v Wan, 93 AD3d 763, 765; Micciola v Sacchi, 36 AD3d 869, 871). Furthermore, the plaintiffs' additional arguments were either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or lacked merit. Consequently, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against each defendant.