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.
Messeroux v. Maimonides Med. Ctr.
Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 1487Docket: 2017-03211
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 3, 2020; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Messeroux v. Maimonides Medical Center, the plaintiffs, Rose Messeroux and others, appealed a January 31, 2017 order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims of medical malpractice. The case involves Joseph Messeroux, a 51-year-old man with a history of high blood pressure who sought treatment at Maimonides Medical Center (MMC) on October 20, 2009, for chest pain and other symptoms. After various tests, he was diagnosed with a hypertensive crisis and related conditions. He was treated and discharged on October 23, 2009, with prescribed hypertension medications. Shortly after, he returned to MMC, experiencing dizziness and lightheadedness, attributed to an allergic reaction to the medications. He was discharged again with instructions to stop the medications. The following day, he was admitted to Kings County Hospital Center, where he was diagnosed with a stroke. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish sufficient grounds for the malpractice claim. The decedent died on November 1, 2009, following a heart attack after being treated at KCH. Plaintiffs initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against MMC and several doctors, alleging inadequate evaluation in the emergency room and during hospitalization, claiming these failures deviated from accepted medical standards and contributed to the decedent's death. The defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the malpractice claims, which the Supreme Court granted. In medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs must prove a deviation from accepted standards of care and that such deviation was a proximate cause of harm. Defendants carry the initial burden to show either no deviation occurred or that any alleged deviation did not cause the injury. The plaintiffs must then demonstrate a triable issue of fact. In this case, the defendants provided expert affirmations from two physicians, who concluded that their care met accepted standards and that any alleged failures were not causative in the decedent's death. The plaintiffs' expert, while specializing in internal medicine, lacked emergency medicine expertise and based opinions on incorrect facts, failing to counter the defendants' evidence. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not establish a triable issue of fact regarding the defendants' adherence to the standard of care or causation, leading to the affirmation of the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants.