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.
Barrocales v. New York Methodist Hospital
Citations: 122 A.D.3d 648; 996 N.Y.S.2d 155
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 11, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court
In a consolidated medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs appeal a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment dismissing allegations of medical malpractice against defendant Ifeanyi Obiakor and the New York Methodist Hospital (NYMH), along with physicians Madhu B. Gudavalli and Sumana Myneni. The plaintiffs claim that Obiakor failed to take necessary actions to delay the premature birth of their infants, who were born with injuries resulting from their premature delivery. They also contend that NYMH was liable due to its decision to discharge plaintiff Shawnette Wiggan on May 7, 2001. To establish medical malpractice, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the physician deviated from accepted medical standards and that this deviation caused their injuries. A physician seeking summary judgment must show either no deviation occurred or that any deviation did not cause the injuries. Once the physician meets this burden, the plaintiff must then present evidence of a triable issue regarding those elements. The court noted that conflicting expert medical opinions preclude summary judgment, as they raise credibility issues for a jury to resolve. However, a plaintiff's expert testimony must not be conclusory or speculative to create such an issue. In this case, Obiakor successfully demonstrated that he adhered to accepted medical standards through expert affirmation and established that any alleged deviation did not cause the plaintiffs' injuries. Consequently, the court affirmed the order dismissing the relevant claims against him and NYMH, with costs awarded to the respondents. Plaintiffs did not establish a triable issue of fact to oppose Obiakor's motion for summary judgment. Their medical expert's affirmation was deemed conclusory, speculative, self-contradictory, and lacking in reasonable medical certainty, thus failing to support their claims. Additionally, the plaintiffs could not counter Obiakor's evidence that he was not vicariously liable for the alleged malpractice of defendant Barbara Gordon, as they were not partners but worked together in a professional corporation. The Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the medical malpractice claims against Obiakor. Furthermore, the hospital defendants, including NYMH, Gudavalli, and Myneni, were also granted summary judgment concerning claims related to Wiggan's discharge on May 7, 2001. It was determined that a private attending physician, not employed by the hospital, made the discharge decision, which absolved the hospital of vicarious liability. The plaintiffs again failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue regarding this matter.