Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendants-appellants appeal an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The court affirms the lower court's decision, noting that even if the defendants initially met their burden, the plaintiffs successfully raised triable issues of fact. This was supported by an affidavit from their medical expert, indicating conflicting expert opinions on whether the defendants deviated from the accepted standard of care and if these deviations contributed to the injuries sustained by plaintiff Cheryl A. Haas. The presence of these credibility issues prevents resolution on summary judgment. Judges Centra, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Sconiers, and Green concurred in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Credibility Issues in Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presence of credibility issues concerning expert witness testimony can prevent the resolution of a case on summary judgment.
Reasoning: The presence of these credibility issues prevents resolution on summary judgment.
Role of Expert Testimony in Establishing Standard of Caresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An affidavit from a medical expert indicating conflicting opinions on the standard of care can create a triable issue of fact, precluding summary judgment.
Reasoning: This was supported by an affidavit from their medical expert, indicating conflicting expert opinions on whether the defendants deviated from the accepted standard of care and if these deviations contributed to the injuries sustained by plaintiff Cheryl A. Haas.
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms the denial of summary judgment when plaintiffs present triable issues of fact through conflicting medical expert opinions.
Reasoning: The court affirms the lower court's decision, noting that even if the defendants initially met their burden, the plaintiffs successfully raised triable issues of fact.