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.
Rivera v. Albany Medical Center Hospital
Citations: 119 A.D.3d 1135; 990 N.Y.S.2d 310
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 10, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made against a Supreme Court order that denied defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical malpractice and informed consent complaint. The plaintiff, diagnosed with Hirschsprung’s disease, underwent an open proctosigmoidectomy after two failed procedures, leading to allegations of permanent erectile dysfunction post-surgery. Defendants' motion was based on a medical expert's affidavit, which was submitted with the expert's name redacted, deemed incompetent for supporting their case. To succeed in their motion, defendants needed to provide sufficient and admissible evidence showing no genuine issue of fact. The court noted that while the law allows some protections for medical expert anonymity during trial preparation, this does not extend to cases where expert opinions are used to resolve legal actions. The court emphasized the necessity for accountability and the ability for nonmovants to investigate the expert's credibility and prior opinions. Ultimately, the court declined to consider the redacted affidavit, reinforcing the need for transparency in expert testimony when seeking summary judgment. Defendants did not fulfill their initial burden to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the negligence-based medical malpractice claim. They needed to demonstrate either no deviation from accepted medical standards or that any deviation did not cause injury. Their submissions, including medical records and deposition testimony, failed to adequately support their claims, lacking specific references to the standard of care or causation of injury. Consequently, the court correctly denied their motion for summary judgment on this cause of action. Regarding the informed consent claim, defendants were required to show that the physician disclosed the risks, benefits, and alternatives that a reasonable practitioner would disclose or that a reasonably informed patient would have chosen the procedure. The physician's testimony did not sufficiently establish these points, leaving material factual issues raised by the plaintiff's contradictory testimony that he received no warning about potential risks. Additionally, plaintiff's assertion that he would have opted against surgery if properly informed created a triable issue of fact. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the informed consent claim, noting that expert testimony requirements did not apply to the review of defendants' submissions. Finally, while the plaintiff's counsel indicated a lack of intention to proceed to trial on this claim and no supporting expert witness, the record did not provide clear evidence of a stipulation for discontinuance, thus the court could not grant such an order. The decision was affirmed with costs.