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.
Pettway v. Vorobyeva
Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 01190Docket: 2019-05207
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; February 22, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Pettway v. Vorobyeva, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the lower court's order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff, Debora Pettway, alleged she suffered a second-degree burn from an electrocautery device during a myomectomy performed by a primary surgeon with the defendant assisting. The court highlighted the essential elements of medical malpractice, which include a deviation from accepted medical practice and proof that such deviation caused the injury. The defendant successfully established a prima facie case demonstrating no departure from accepted medical practices, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show a triable issue of fact. The court noted that general allegations of malpractice lacking competent evidence are insufficient to counter a summary judgment motion. Expert opinions must specifically address the assertions made by the defendant's experts and rely on cited evidence, while opinions outside a physician's specialty require a foundation for reliability. The absence of such foundations renders expert opinions of no probative value, failing to meet the burden necessary to oppose summary judgment. The defendant successfully demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an expert affirmation from a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, who concluded that the defendant did not deviate from accepted medical practices and did not cause the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff's opposition failed to present a triable issue of fact, as the expert affirmation provided by the plaintiff, a neurologist and psychiatrist, lacked probative value due to the expert's insufficient qualifications in gynecology and surgery. Additionally, the plaintiff's expert's statements were deemed conclusory and speculative, not addressing the defendant's expert's specific claims. Consequently, the Supreme Court appropriately granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, with concurrence from the judges involved.