Johnson v. Albany Memorial Hospital
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 19, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made from a Supreme Court order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint related to a Legionella Pneumophila outbreak at a hospital in Albany. In 1989, three cases were reported, followed by five confirmed cases in May 1990, prompting a hospital-wide investigation with the Department of Health. The Legionella bacteria was identified in the hospital's hot-water system on June 23, 1990. A plan was initiated to superheat the water to 190 degrees and maintain it at 140 degrees, with a waiver from the Department of Health, starting July 16, 1990. Prior to this, plaintiff Norma E. Johnson was hospitalized on June 27 and underwent surgery on July 1, during which she contracted Legionella, confirmed on July 25. Johnson and her husband filed suit alleging medical malpractice, negligence, and breach of contract. The defendant sought summary judgment, which was granted based on the plaintiffs' failure to raise a triable issue of fact. The court found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the negligence and breach of contract claims. The defendant needed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment by providing sufficient evidence to negate any material factual issues. The defendant submitted affidavits from two experts, noting that no public health policy existed for managing Legionella outbreaks at that time. The experts confirmed that the hospital had complied with regulations but did not sufficiently explain why action was delayed from the confirmation of the outbreak on June 23 until July 16. The court concluded that the defendant did not adequately prove it acted reasonably after identifying the source of the outbreak or that no interim measures were taken to prevent further infections. Defendant did not address the plaintiffs’ claim of negligence regarding a failure to warn patients about the risk of infection. Testimony from Van Antwerpen confirmed that patients were not informed of this potential danger. Consequently, the court determined that the defendant did not fulfill its burden for summary judgment, leading to the denial of the motion concerning the negligence and breach of contract claims. The order was modified in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the part that granted summary judgment to the defendant on those claims, while affirming the dismissal of the medical malpractice claims as they were unrelated to the medical treatment provided to Johnson.